Daily Mail accuses Media Watch of double standards over Malcolm Fraser ‘clarification’
Holder
The managing director of Daily Mail Australia has accused the ABC’s Media Watch of “double standards” after the public broadcaster’s audience and consumer affairs section accepted the program may have “misled” viewers over the Mail’s coverage of the death of Malcolm Fraser.
It also apologised for any “misunderstanding this may have caused”.
However Daily Mail managing director Peter Holder said he was unhappy that the program itself had only issued a “clarification” on-air and not apologised publicly over the stoush.
The row centres on Media Watch host Paul Barry’s critique of the prominence the Mail gave to story of when the former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser lost his pants in Dallas.
“Daily Mail Australia would like Media Watch to behave to the very exacting standards it clearly expects of us, and others,” Holder told Mumbrella. “We have no intention of pursuing this any further, but it is worth noting that Media Watch failed to use the word ‘apologise’ on-air while ABC Corporate Affairs is more than willing to do so on its behalf. It reeks of double standards.”
The fight between the Daily Mail and the ABC began two weeks ago, after Media Watch host Paul Barry criticised the Daily Mail for the prominence of a story entitled: “What REALLY happened the night Malcolm Fraser lost his trousers in a seedy Memphis hotel? As a nation mourns the death of former PM at 84 – the incident he refused to ever talk about”.
Barry told his audience: “As tributes poured in for Australia’s former Prime Minister who so divided this nation the best the Daily Mail could do last Friday afternoon—believe it or not— was to run that as their top story on his legacy.”
Following the broadcast, Holder sent irate emails to Mark Scott and the ABC board demanding a retraction and apology, along with the removal of the segment from the ABC website.
Media Watch later put a clarification in its transcript and in last Monday’s broadcast Barry acknowledged the Mail’s concerns saying: “The Daily Mail is upset that we didn’t make it clear they had covered his political legacy within minutes of his passing.
“So we’re happy to set the record straight: the Mail did write about the Dismissal … and Fraser’s championing of human rights in its 611 word obituary. Our point was that its first story after that, which ran up the top of its website, was almost as many words on his pants.”
In correspondence, Kirstin McLiesh, head of audience & consumer affairs at the ABC, which is an independent unit responsible for investigating complaints where the ABC is accused of breaching its editorial standards, also addressed Holder’s concerns.
In a letter on March 31 McLiesh wrote: “Audience and Consumer Affairs agrees that viewers could have been misled by Media Watch into believing that the Daily Mail had chosen not to report important aspects of the life and career of Malcolm Fraser.
“The publication of the Fraser obituary prior to the publication of the story on the Memphis incident, was materially relevant context for an understanding of the Daily Mail’s editorial decisions. Media Watch apologises for any misunderstanding this may have caused.”
The independent ABC unit also told Holder that “Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied these measures have been timely and sufficient and we consider this matter resolved.”
In a separate statement on the ABC website the unit noted that viewers might have been “misled” and that Media Watch had issued a clarification. But it also stated “the complainant’s concerns about impartiality were not upheld.”
When asked about the Daily Mail’s correspondence and the ABC audience & consumer affairs unit findings, Barry told Mumbrella: “We updated our web page on Wednesday 25 March 2015 and amended the transcript as soon as we heard from the Daily Mail. We also answered Peter Holder’s email.
“We said in our program on Monday 30th March, in response to the Mail’s letter, ‘We are happy to set the record straight’. And this is what we then did on air, making it abundantly clear what the Mail was complaining about.
“ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs has now resolved the Mail’s complaint against the original broadcast. If it feels it’s reasonable to offer an ‘apology for any misunderstanding’ it’s a matter for them. The unit is at arm’s length from this program.”
Nic Christensen
The Daily Mail Australia is an advertiser on this website.
The letter from the ABC’s head, audience & consumer affairs Kirstin McLiesh to Peter Holder
Dear Mr Holder
I refer to your emails of 24 and 26 March to Mark Scott and Tim Latham respectively, concerning the Media Watch program of 23 March. The Managing Director has asked me to respond on his behalf.
As your correspondence raised concerns of bias and inaccuracy, your emails were referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs for consideration and response. The unit is separate and independent from ABC program areas and is responsible for investigating complaints alleging a broadcast or publication was in contravention of the ABC’s editorial standards. In light of your complaint, we have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial requirements for accuracy and impartiality, as outlined in sections 2 and 4 of the ABC’s Code of Practice.
Audience and Consumer Affairs agrees that viewers could have been misled by Media Watch into believing that the Daily Mail had chosen not to report important aspects of the life and career of Malcolm Fraser. The publication of the Fraser obituary prior to the publication of the story on the Memphis incident, was materially relevant context for an understanding of the Daily Mail’s editorial decisions.
Media Watch apologises for any misunderstanding this may have caused.
The program has published a clarification on the Media Watch website and on the ABC Online Corrections and Clarifications page. http://www.abc.net.au/news/corrections/ A clarification was also read by Paul Barry on the program on 30 March.
Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied these measures have been timely and sufficient and we consider this matter resolved.
In relation to impartiality, Media Watch primarily is a program of review and criticism of media practice. Given the long history of Media Watch, viewers understand that views expressed by the presenter duly reflect his or her perspective and do not represent those of the ABC.
Mr Barry stands by his view, as expressed on the program, that the Daily Mail prioritised an essentially salacious story over and above the more significant aspects of Malcolm Fraser’s life. In his analysis, that was evidenced by the length and prominent placement of the Memphis story, particularly compared to the obituary.
In the view of Audience and Consumer Affairs, commentary of this nature is consistent with Mr Barry’s role and with the ABC’s standards for impartiality.
For your reference, the ABC Code of Practice is available online at http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/code-of-practice-2014/
Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue your complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, http://www.acma.gov.au .
Yours sincerely
Kirstin McLiesh
Head, Audience & Consumer Affairs
Letter from Peter Holder managing director of the Daily Mail Australia to Timothy Latham Ccing in ABC MD Mark Scott; ABC media manager Nick Leys; the ABC Board; Mail Online’s Sean Walsh
Hi Timothy,
These excuses are simply unacceptable and show a complete bias towards our publication.
You are using semantics to cover up for Media Watch’s blatant dishonesty and we still expect a verbal correction next week.
As you should be aware, online news continues to evolve and update as each day goes on – hence putting the “pants” story above the obituary after it had run for multiple hours. We provided multiple stories regarding Mr Fraser’s death and you simply overlooked them as they didn’t “fit” with the narrative you had created for your program.
What Media Watch suggested was that we didn’t cover the story at all and that is completely dishonest.
As the self-proclaimed bastion of media policing, we expect a complete correction on air, on Monday evening, that:
- Indicates we covered Mr. Fraser’s death with more than the pants story and that it was the second story we had published on the day of his death following our initial obituary story
- States that we did in fact cover his legacy in our initial story, which was still on the Daily Mail Australia homepage when the “pants” story was published
- Apologises for misleading your viewers to believe otherwise
- Highlights all of the other publications that also covered this story
Furthermore we expect better from you. When commenting on our publication, you have our contact details and we expect to be called when you are mentioning us on air. We always respond to Media Watchand we would have addressed these allegations with you had you called us.
Stating, “We did not contact the Daily Mail because our critique was about editorial judgement, facts were not at issue,” is unacceptable and simply an excuse for abandoning the ABC Charter when you knew the facts would get in the way of a good story – albeit a false one.
We are extremely disappointed with the way Media Watch has treated us as you have actively done what you accuse other media organisations of doing each week. You should be better than that.
We expect you to correct the record on Monday night.
Regards,
Peter
Letter from Tim Latham EP of Media Watch to Peter Holder
Hi Peter,
Thanks for your note.
Our critique of the Daily Mail’s coverage of Malcolm Fraser’s death was centred on its decision to promote, as its first breakout story, a report on “what really happened the night Malcolm Fraser lost his trousers in a seedy Memphis hotel”.
The story was posted at 11.57 and was the Daily Mail’s lead story mid afternoon.
As we compared other media outlets and their focus on the former PM’s diverse, extensive and at times, controversial contribution to Australian politics, we were struck with the Daily Mail’s decision to focus on this issue as its top story on his legacy and to run it ahead of a shorter obituary that looked more broadly at his career.
Paul Barry made it clear that we were talking about coverage “last Friday afternoon”.
Not coverage before or after.
We feel there were any number of Malcolm Fraser’s political achievements that were of far more importance than the 29 year-old saga of his missing trousers and that’s
why we mentioned.
The Dismissal
Vietnam refugees
Or standing up for human rights
Yet the Daily Mail chose to devote 560 words to the trouser story and only 503 words to the broader, and by then, less prominent, obituary.
However, in light of the Daily Mail’s complaint we have now added this statement to the website transcript.
**UPDATE:The Daily Mail says it covered Malcolm Fraser’s political legacy in its obituary, posted earlier in the morning, including “The Dismissal, as well as Mr Fraser’s outstanding record on multiculturalism, asylum seekers, and confronting the ‘evil of apartheid’.”
We have also amended the story headline :
Two hours after publishing its obituary on Malcolm Fraser, the Daily Mail chose a yarn about his missing pants as its breakout story.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4203368.htm
We did not contact the Daily Mail because our critique was about editorial judgement, facts were not at issue.
Cheers
Tim
Email from Peter Holder to ABC MD Mark Scott and theABC Board
Dear Mr Scott,
Daily Mail Australia seeks an urgent retraction and apology for Mr. Paul Barry’s false and misleading reporting on last night’s Media Watch – Monday, 23 March 2015.
Media Watch’s opening segment blatantly and falsely attacked Daily Mail Australia’s reporting of the death of former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Put simply, it disregarded the ABC’s own principles and standards that specifically state are designed “to assist the ABC to provide content which fulfils its functions under the ABC Act to a high standard.”
Last night’s segment certainly did not meet this high standard as it was both untrue and biased. Media Watch didn’t even call Daily Mail Australia for comment prior to broadcast.
The program’s opening segment highlighted this story – a story that other publications also followed, but obviously weren’t mentioned in the Media Watch piece:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003441/The-night-Malcolm-Fraser-lost-trousers-seedy-Memphis-hotel-popular-prostitutes-drug-dealers.htmlMr. Barry stated: “And as tributes poured in for Australia’s former Prime Minister who so divided this nation the best the Daily Mail could do last Friday afternoon—believe it or not— was to run that as their top story on his legacy. Continuing in sensational fashion below the headline with a series of bullet points to tell the tale.”
This is both WRONG and MISLEADING. Daily Mail Australia’s first and most read story was this piece:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003334/Former-prime-minister-Malcolm-Fraser-dies-age-84.htmlFurthermore, Daily Mail Australia also published two other pieces:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003638/Like-dictator-dangerous-peace-destroyer-wisdom-Malcolm-Fraser-s-furious-tweets-reveal-fraught-relationship-Tony-Abbott.htmlMr. Barry then went on to incorrectly state:
“Yes, bugger the Dismissal.
And Fraser’s welcome to Vietnamese refugees.
And bugger his courage for opposing apartheid.
Or standing up for human rights.”This is simply FALSE. All four of these issues are covered in our initial story, in which Daily Mail Australia addressed The Dismissal, as well as Mr Fraser’s outstanding record on multiculturalism, asylum seekers, and confronting the ‘evil of apartheid.’
All of this is backed up by the time stamps at the top of each story under the reporter’s by-line.
Like the Australian public, we expect more of Media Watch. A simple call for comment – we ALWAYS respond to Media Watch – would have cleared up this mess.
We expect, in the spirit of the ABC charter, a full correction at the start of Media Watch next week and the story and video removed from your website and all other ABC properties where it is available. This is only fitting as this is where the show decided to falsely skewer our publication.
I eagerly await your response.
Peter Holder
It’s all a bit of a yawn. I’m more concerned about the photo that goes with the story. Is Holder wearing Mal’s pants on his head?
User ID not verified.
Will Daily Mail apologise to News for cutting and pasting stories from the Daily Telegraph website?
User ID not verified.
Media Watch is more tabloid than the tabloids it goes after
User ID not verified.
Picture’s a cross between Magnum PI and Robin Williams
User ID not verified.
I also cannot wait for the DM to apologise to News. Over to you, Mr Holder
User ID not verified.
I’m with @ Barkeep. More yawn-inspiring media naval gazing. Who – apart from those who work in the media – really cares?
User ID not verified.
Um The Magnus – not sure if you realise but the Daily Telegraph actually copied Mail Online’s homepage design and quite frequently lifts their stories too – without attribution. Whenever I read the Mail Online they seem to always link back to the source if they haven’t independently reported it.
User ID not verified.
It is not just the Daily Telegraph that gets cut and pasted.
User ID not verified.
@ The Magus: Will the Daily Tele apologise to the Daily Mail for blatantly copying The Mail’s iconic and popular Right Rail in a desperate attempt to lift the Tele’s dire digital audience numbers?
User ID not verified.
@ all Will the Mail and News Ltd just totter off into the sunset please and allow responsible media to report on the facts and not corporate policy?
User ID not verified.
Yep, Pete’s hairstyle is the most interesting thing about this story.
User ID not verified.
I’m more interested in hearing about Luke, the little soul that went missing but then turned up safely after 4 days. Our modern day Mowgli.
User ID not verified.
And now we cross to Graham in the weather room … there appears to be a storm brewing in a teacup but it will soon pass.
User ID not verified.