ABC News boss savage blast at bullies targeting the broadcasters highest paid stars

ABC News boss Justin Stevens has lambasted unrelenting critics of the public broadcasters star reporters, describing them as bullies with ideological, personal or commercial axes to grind.

His comments come amid growing furore against the taxpayer-funded broadcaster following claims it published doctored vision of an Australian soldier to make it appear as though he was repeatedly firing at an unarmed civilian. 

Forensic digital audio expert James Raper told Channel Sevens Spotlight the sound of six gunshots had been copied and pasted into footage included in a 2022 ABC report about alleged war crimes to make it appear more sinister. 

The ABC has since launched an investigation into how the footage was manipulated before it appeared in the online news report by the ABCs 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 and that it had been immediately removed once questions were raised about its veracity.

The manipulated vision has sparked a furious backlash against the broadcaster, with some critics accusing the ABC of deliberately denigrating the nations war heroes.  

Mr Stevens addressed the offending footage while delivering a speech on media trust and transparency at the Melbourne Press Club on Tuesday, saying the error shouldnt have occurred but any suggestion it was knowingly doctored was untrue. 

He said the ABC was prepared to listen to good faith criticism and respond accordingly, acknowledging that in the race to cover major stories mistakes are certainly made. 

ABC News boss Justin Stevens has accused the public broadcasters media rivals of launching targeted, personal attacks against its journalists for ideological and commercial reasons

Mis-steps sometimes happen. And we must admit when we can do better, Mr Stevens said in the speech.

Just last week it was brought to our attention by Channel Seven that a video clip in an online story from two years ago had an error. 

A preliminary inspection suggests a section of audio was incorrectly edited.

We removed the video and are still looking into how this happened. Once we have the full facts we will determine the appropriate response.

Until we have clarity on how it occurred, I wont be making further comments about it, so as to not pre-empt that.

He then returned fire on the public broadcasters most outspoken and unrelenting critics and accused them of being bullies intent on waging a malicious war on ABC journalists personal reputations. 

The ABC has defended ABC investigations editor Jo Puccini following claims fake gunshots were added to footage of an Australian soldier firing at Afghans to make it appear more sinister

The public broadcaster said award-winning investigative journalist Mark Willacy was unaware of the error in the online news report before it was raised by Sevens Spotlight program

We expect scrutiny on the ABC to be rigorous and thorough and I don’t shy from that when it’s warranted, he said.

But sometimes what’s called "scrutiny" is really an agenda-driven attack motivated by ideological, personal or commercial interests, often directed at specific journalists with the goal of denting their reputations.

This trend across social media and from some media outlets – and let’s be honest and call it what it often is: bullying – is about more than just the ABC. 

Spurious attacks on SOME journalists can potentially erode the reputation of ALL journalists. And that feeds the publics crisis of trust.

This is why the scale of unfair attacks on ABC journalists, whether by social media trolls, commentators or our media competitors, should be called out.

Disturbingly, we disproportionately see women, First Nations and culturally diverse journalists being targeted.

Mr Stevens also accused social media activists of amplifying erroneous criticism and creating vicious pile-ons of the ABCs highest paid stars. 

Mr Stevens said the ABCs biggest star journalists - such as Patricia Karvelas (pictured) - were always prepared to give public figures with opposing views a platform to debate ideas

Activists on X, for example, rarely go a day without piling on the ABC’s respected National Political Lead and Insiders host David Speers, he said. 

David’s track record and work over decades is exemplary. 

Make no mistake: he’s a target of this vicious pile-on because a noisy cohort don’t want an impartial journalist in a role like his. 

They want somebody who barracks for their side. David has the ABC’s full support and respect.

He said the principle of impartiality among the ABCs journalists was often misunderstood and oversimplified before delivering another broadside to the broadcasters media rivals. 

Impartiality does not mean journalists don’t have feelings or opinions. Being human, of course they do. In fact, humanity is a grace note of the finest journalism, he said. 

ABC News boss Justin Stevens says award-winning ABC star David Speers (pictured) would always have the public broadcasters full support and respect

It isn’t only ABC audiences who have the right to expect impartiality. 

Any credible media organisation should ensure their journalism is accurate and fair, and they should have training and processes in place to support that.

Just as importantly, we don’t ask journalists to seek false balance – to fall into reductive "both sides" reporting. 

In ABC content, we expect to see a diversity of perspectives where there is genuinely unresolved debate.

Mr Stevens maintained the ABCs journalists never shied away from offering a platform to individuals of significant public interest - regardless of whether they personally agreed with their views or not.  

I can’t imagine a Patricia Karvelas or a Michael Rowland ever going easy on anybody, he said.

ABC News Breakfast host Michael Rowland (pictured) was always up for a contentious debate, according to his boss

The best political interviewers have their reputations because they hold all comers equally accountable. 

The audience is unable to discern any agenda for an interview other than getting to the bottom of matters.

We reject suggestions that we shouldn’t "platform" people with particular political views. 

We don’t "platform" people, we report on them – interview them, challenge them, scrutinise them. Again, so the public can make up their own minds.

We don’t aim to appease any side or audience segment. 

We reject any approach that selects and censors who we can report on, on the basis of an approved ideology.