The ABC’s managing director has rebuked the national broadcasting regulator, arguing its criticism of a Four Corners story was unfair and could have a chilling impact on investigative journalism in Australia.
Hugh Mark’s direct criticism of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Acma) on Thursday morning was been labelled “disappointing” by the regulator’s chair, Nerida O’Loughlin, who has not ruled out a formal regulatory response.
The spat was triggered by an Acma investigation into a March 2025 Four Corners program on the redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial. On Thursday, Acma said the investigation found that the program was accurate but failed to meet the public broadcaster’s impartiality obligations.
The regulator found the episode titled Sacrifice unduly favoured a critical perspective of the redevelopment, which may have misled some viewers. It also highlighted the program’s “use of strong and emotive language”.
Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email“Investigative journalism plays an important role in scrutinising matters in the public interest,” O’Loughlin said in a statement. “However, the ABC must present contentious issues with due impartiality and provide audiences with sufficient context.”
In response the ABC said Acma’s findings, if applied broadly, could impose an unworkable interpretation of impartiality and force “false balance” obligations on newsrooms across the country.
“If this interpretation of the code is applied, including more widely across the industry, it could have a chilling effect on the body of investigative journalism that delivers the important stories that serve the public interest,” Marks said in a statement.
Marks said the ABC respected the important role of Acma and noted the public broadcaster had “overwhelmingly accepted its rulings and acted on them in the past”.
The ABC has accused Acma of failing to understand the obligation of journalism to hold public officials to account for decisions made in office.
“It also unfairly impugns the integrity of the reporter and fails to acknowledge the great efforts made by the program team to ensure impartiality,” the ABC said in a statement.
Acma found the program did not adequately explain the findings of an Australian National Audit Office report and focused primarily on its criticism of the memorial.
“It also conflated different stages of the redevelopment consultation process which was likely to leave viewers confused as to the accuracy of the claims by the memorial director,” Acma said in a statement.
O’Loughlin said the ABC told Acma it did not propose to take any remedial action in response to its findings.
“It is disappointing that the ABC chooses to regularly dispute the findings of the regulator when we stand in place of ordinary reasonable viewers in assessing its compliance with its code,” O’Loughlin said.
“Instead, we would expect the ABC to take onboard our findings and consider any improvements it should make in response.”
The regulator cannot compel the ABC to take remedial action in response to its findings but was now considering “any formal regulatory response”.
The Australian War Memorial (AWM) said it initially complained to the ABC, but its concerns were dismissed by the broadcaster’s independent obmudsman.
The chair of the memorial’s council, Kim Beazley, then made a formal complaint to Acma, the AWM said in a statement.
Beazley welcomed Acma’s finding, saying “the council will not allow this program to unfairly damage the reputation of the Australian war memorial”.
The war memorial has also requested the Four Corners episode be removed from all ABC platforms.
This is the second time Acma has accused the ABC of breaching its code of practice this year.
In March, Acma accused another Four Corners program, Water Grab, of breaching the broadcaster’s accuracy and impartiality rules.
In that case, O’Loughlin accused the ABC of not having enough evidence to make its assertions and called on the broadcaster to “adequately check the veracity of facts they cover before going to air”.
In response the ABC acknowledged some of the program’s statements “should have been qualified” but rejected claims they were inaccurate.
