Adding gunshot sounds to a story and misleadingly editing an interview were not attempts to slant the story, the Corporation claimed.
An independent review has found that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) misled viewers of its 7:30 programme in 2022 by airing a story that raised questions about the conduct of the Australian’s 2nd Commando Regiment—one of Australia’s most elite combat units—in Afghanistan in 2012.
The controversy only emerged rival Seven Network’s Spotlight program featured the footage in September 2024.
The review was conducted by veteran journalist Alan Sunderland, who had spent 40 years with the ABC and SBS and is now a member of the Australian Press Council.
He found that ABC staff had “inadvertently” added extra gunshot sounds to footage of Australian commandos firing from a helicopter and misleadingly edited an interview with former U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) leader Bret Hamilton.
The logo for Australia’s public broadcaster ABC is seen on its head office building in Sydney, Australia, on Sept. 27, 2018. Saeed Khan/AFP via Getty Images
Sunderland, a two-time Walkley Award Winner and author of The Ten Rules of Reporting: Journalism for the Community, concluded that Hamilton’s comments had not been presented in their proper context, making it appear he was talking about war crime allegations in general rather than specifically about the troops in question.
However, Sunderland found no evidence suggesting these changes were made by ABC journalists or were done to deliberately deceive or mislead.
Related Stories
Instead, they appeared to be an “inadvertent consequence of attempts to create clean, accurate, and effective sequences in the story.”
He rejected complaints that a section of footage was slowed down, zoomed in, and highlighted, saying this was not misleading, inappropriate, or problematic.
ABC News Director Justin Stevens said the Corporation had sincerely apologised to the 2nd Commando Regiment members for the editing errors and assured the Senate estimates hearing that the content had since been removed.
“Obviously, this shouldn’t have occurred, and we’re taking it, and have taken it, very seriously,” he said.
He noted that Sunderland found the errors did not alter the story’s central focus, and the issues raised were significant and remained of public importance.
He accepted, however, that scrutiny of the programme was warranted.
“The perpetuating allegation that it was intentionally doctored was false, as shown by the independent review, and is not an accurate characterisation of what occurred,” Stevens said.
Not Intentionally Doctored: ABC News Head
The news director said the journalists involved were accustomed to a higher level of scrutiny that came with producing investigative journalism, but at times, that could be unfair.
“The general lack of civility in public discourse … has a very damaging effect on individuals and journalists,” Stevens remarked.
“It actually leads to issues related to their safety and security at times.”
The review is ongoing, and findings have yet to be made on the ABC’s actions when it first received complaints about the footage. In the interim, it has made five recommendations, including reviewing the broadcaster’s editorial policies, training, and editing practices.
The ABC has undertaken to publish a correction regarding the editing errors and append an editor’s note clarifying the context of Hamilton’s comment.
AAP contributed to this story
