ABC News chief Justin Stevens has slammed critics of the broadcaster’s star reporters, describing them as “thugs” with “ideological, personal or commercial” goals to pursue.
His comments come amid a growing furore against the taxpayer-funded broadcaster following claims it published a “doctored” view of an Australian soldier to make it appear he was repeatedly shooting an unarmed civilian.
Forensic digital audio expert James Raper told Channel Seven’s Spotlight that the sound of six gunshots had been “copied and pasted” into footage included in a 2022 ABC report on alleged war crimes to make it sound more sinister.
The ABC has since launched an investigation into how the material was manipulated before it appeared in the online news report by the ABC’s investigations unit.
Mr Stevens has fiercely defended the award-winning star journalists behind the investigative series – Jo Puccini, Mark Willacy and Josh Robertson – saying they had “no role in the production and editing” of the clip and that it had been “immediately” removed once questions were raised about its veracity.
The doctored viewing has sparked a furious backlash against the broadcaster, with some critics accusing the ABC of deliberately denigrating the nation’s war heroes.
Mr Stevens addressed the offensive images while delivering a speech on media trust and transparency at the Melbourne Press Club on Tuesday, saying the error “should not have happened” but any suggestion it was deliberately “doctored” was false.
He said the ABC was “prepared to listen to good faith criticism” and respond accordingly, acknowledging that in the race to cover important stories “mistakes are certainly made”.
ABC News chief Justin Stevens has accused rival broadcasters of launching targeted and personal attacks on his journalists for ideological and commercial reasons.
“Sometimes mistakes are made, and we must recognize that we can do better,” Stevens said in his speech.
‘Last week, Channel Seven informed us that a video clip in an online story from two years ago contained an error.
‘A preliminary inspection suggests that a section of audio was incorrectly edited.
‘We have removed the video and are still investigating how this happened. Once we have all the facts, we will determine the appropriate response.
“Until we have clarity on how it happened, I will not comment further on the matter, so as not to get ahead of myself.”
He then hit back at the public broadcaster’s most outspoken and relentless critics, accusing them of being “bully’s” bent on waging malicious war on the personal reputations of ABC journalists.
The ABC has defended the broadcaster’s investigations editor Jo Puccini following claims that fake gunshots were added to footage of an Australian soldier shooting Afghans to make it look more sinister.
The public broadcaster said award-winning investigative journalist Mark Willacy was not aware of the error in the online news report before it was mentioned on Seven’s Spotlight program.
“We expect the ABC’s scrutiny to be rigorous and thorough and I do not hesitate to do so where it is justified,” he said.
‘But sometimes what is called “scrutiny” is actually an attack driven by ideological, personal or commercial interests, often targeting specific journalists with the aim of damaging their reputation.
‘This trend on social media and in some media outlets – and let’s be honest and call it what it is: harassment – affects much more than just ABC.
‘Spurious attacks against SOME journalists can potentially erode the reputation of ALL journalists, fuelling the crisis of public trust.
‘This is why the scale of the unfair attacks on ABC journalists, whether by social media trolls, commentators or our media competitors, must be denounced.
“It is concerning that we are disproportionately seeing women, First Nations journalists and culturally diverse journalists targeted.”
Mr Stevens also accused social media “activists” of amplifying erroneous criticism and creating “vicious attacks” against ABC’s highest-paid stars.
Mr Stevens said the ABC’s top star journalists, such as Patricia Karvelas (pictured), were always willing to give public figures with opposing views “a platform” to debate ideas.
“X activists, for example, rarely go a day without attacking the ABC’s respected national political commentator and Insiders presenter David Speers,” he said.
‘David’s career and work over decades are exemplary.
Make no mistake: he is the target of this vicious attack because a vocal group does not want an impartial journalist in a position like his.
“They want someone who will support their side. David has the full support and respect of the ABC.”
He said the principle of “impartiality” among ABC journalists was often “misunderstood and oversimplified” before launching another broadside at the broadcaster’s rival outlets.
“Impartiality does not mean that journalists do not have feelings or opinions. As humans, of course they do. In fact, humanity is a hallmark of the best journalism,” he said.
ABC News boss Justin Stevens says award-winning ABC star David Speers (pictured) will always have the full support and respect of the public broadcaster.
‘It’s not just ABC viewers who have a right to expect impartiality.
‘Any credible media organisation must ensure its journalism is accurate and fair, and must have training and processes in place to support this.
Equally important, we do not ask journalists to seek a false balance, to avoid falling into reductive “both sides” reporting.
‘In ABC’s content we hope to see a diversity of perspectives where there really is an unresolved debate.’
Mr Stevens said ABC journalists never shied away from giving “a platform” to individuals of significant public interest, regardless of whether they personally agreed with their views or not.
“I can’t imagine Patricia Karvelas or Michael Rowland being lenient with anyone,” he said.
ABC News Breakfast presenter Michael Rowland (pictured) was always ready to engage in a controversial debate, according to his boss.
‘The best political interviewers earn their reputation by demanding equal responsibility from all concerned.
‘The public is unable to discern any objective for an interview beyond getting to the bottom of the matter.
We reject suggestions that we should not “give platforms” to people with particular political views.
‘We don’t put people on a platform, we report on them, we interview them, we question them, we examine them. Again, so that the public can form its own opinion.
‘We do not seek to appease any side or segment of the audience.
We reject any approach that selects and censors who we can report on, based on an approved ideology.
