Takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and non-discrimination.
Is never seen to be advocating for any particular outcome in contentious political, policy or social debates.
Provides accurate, fair and unbiased information and a wide range of relevant perspectives to help audiences make up their own minds on controversial issues.
Assess the credibility and authority of experts and sources.
Attribute your sources.
Do not ignore credible evidence or exclude significant perspectives that do not conform with your conclusions.
Inform the audience as much as possible of all relevant evidence.
Present the principal relevant perspectives in the community.
People’s lived experience, including your own, should inform your judgements but not determine them.
Cite your evidence.
Remember your conclusion is a probability, not a fact.
Don’t overstate your certainty.
Present different sides of an argument without making judgements either explicitly or implicitly on their relative merit.
Demonstrably false and factually inaccurate statements should be identified and called out as such.
Use experts and other informed parties to comment on the relative merits of arguments.
Ensure, as much as possible, that all significant perspectives are reported.
Not providing stakeholders opportunities to comment on issues or allegations that directly affect them.
Rudeness and not treating people with respect.
Not giving interviewees a reasonable chance to answer questions and explain their point of view.
Failing to provide sufficient context to explain points of view or inaccurately summarising those views.
Misrepresenting a person’s or organisation’s views.
Using language, images or music that is emotive, hyperbolic or inflammatory, which unduly colours perception of the issues or individuals that are the subject of the story.
Seek evidence that contradicts your thesis as rigorously as you seek evidence that confirms it.
Don’t make assumptions about people’s motivations.
Double check your facts.
Seek corroboration of all claims even if you find your contact or interviewee believable.
Be very careful interpreting documents, particularly if they relate to complicated transactions or specialist knowledge.
Seek advice from independent experts.
Always be prepared to change your mind or drop the story if the evidence doesn’t conform to your preconceptions.
Be aware of and challenge your own biases and prejudices.
Authority; The people who have legitimate power to decide outcomes.
Experts; People or bodies with recognised expertise in the matter to hand.
Influencers; People with influence by virtue of their public standing.
Affected parties; People, companies or organisations that will be affected.
Format
Audience
Platform
Contentiousness
Topicality
A Four Corners program examining a major public policy issue should seek to present all principal relevant perspectives within the story. Conversely, radio news on a breaking story will likely present different perspectives in different stories over hours or days.
Limited series will be considered as one work. For instance, the If You’re Listening podcasts can present different perspectives in different episodes.
Panel programs as much as possible should seek different perspectives within each program. This is not a rigid rule though. A program like Q&A that discusses several issues in each episode may seek a diversity of perspectives on specific issues over time.
For single person interviews or panel interviews where all the guests broadly agree, interviewers should challenge guests and play ‘devil’s advocate’ as well as seeking interviews with guests with different perspectives.
For short form news content, such as vertical video intended for social media, including TikTok and Instagram, there is still an expectation that key contrasting perspectives are presented. There should at least be an indication that a particular perspective is contested or that other perspectives exist. Generally, this will be possible within a single piece of work. When it is not possible editors should ensure they plan to present different perspectives across a number of clips within a reasonable period of time. Helping audiences navigate to other ABC content – for example through an online link – can also assist in presenting a diversity of perspectives.
How will I mitigate any personal biases I might have about the subject?
Have I considered alternative views and evidence to my own or the dominant view?
Have I explored all possible explanations and narratives to the issues or events I’m examining?
Have all the relevant perspectives been identified, and have any been left out?
Am I giving all affected parties a fair opportunity to participate or comment?
Are my questions presented without pre-judgement to help audiences make up their own mind?
Is the language and tone I am using, or the audio and video I have selected, overly emotive, hyperbolic or inflammatory in a way that unduly colours the perception of the issues or individuals that are the subject of the story?
Present the evidence accurately and with appropriate context, including conveying any relevant limitations or qualifications.
Seek corroboration of all claims
Remain skeptical to the end - we have unconscious bias towards believing people from similar backgrounds to ourselves.
Find ways to test your approach and the framing of your story by seeking input from others in your team or your manager. Be open to different views and feedback.
Take input from your team or manager as to whether something or someone relevant is missing.
Avoid the first person in mainstream reporting.
The story usually is not about you.
Think of yourself as a witness, not the focus of the story.
Your experience is evidence that must be weighed against the evidence of other people’s experience.
Your experiences should inform the storytelling, not be the story.
Avoid advocacy.
Be respectful of different opinions and perspectives.
The purpose is to inform not persuade.
Be clear and transparent that you are presenting a personal perspective and not speaking on behalf of the ABC.
Upwardly refer to your manager and clearly define the boundaries of your narrative.
Stay focussed on the objective of creating engaging and trustworthy content and do not be diverted into judging each other’s experiences or beliefs.
Work as a team, respectfully and rigorously testing ideas, from commissioning to publication
Keep an open mind. Try to be aware of your own unconscious biases and don’t be defensive if they’re called out by fellow members of staff
Treat all your colleagues and their opinions with respect
Seek and create space for hearing a diversity of views and different experiences in your team.
the type, subject and nature of the content;
the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;
the likely audience expectations of the content;
the degree to which issues are contentious;
the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and
the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate
Assessing the contentiousness of different issues and opinions is a key factor in determining due impartiality.
Issues can be contentious even if they are not prominent in the news cycle at a particular time. Diverse viewpoints should still be presented.
The contentiousness of an issue can change over time as a result of social change, new evidence and changing political forces.
Publishing potentially offensive opinions must be weighed against the harm and offence they may cause.
Analyse the evidence behind proposals and opinions so that audiences are equipped to make up their own minds.
Different viewpoints and alternative evidence must be presented accurately and fairly, irrespective of the final conclusion in the analysis
Conclusions should be based on objective analysis that assesses outcomes, proposals and policies against stated objectives.
Implicit in the process is the answering of a contentious question or testing of a hypothesis or assessing the significance of controversial assertions or actions.
Analysis should show the evidence a conclusion is based on as well as evidence that contradicts those conclusions.
Analysis should be seen to take account of all the evidence that makes an issue contentious.
Expressions of outrage or prescriptive commentary on contentious issues should be avoided.
Do not tell people or organisations what they should do or pass judgement on them.