‘No evidence that anybody, at any stage, made a conscious or deliberate decision’: ABC cleared over fake gunshot audio
An independent review into a series of ABC news reports that added gunshot sounds to helmet-cam footage found “no evidence that anyone at the ABC … deliberately doctored, falsified, manipulated or distorted information, material or evidence in order to mislead audiences.”
The review was commissioned by outgoing ABC managing director David Anderson in September, following complaints that two 7.30 stories and an online piece aired in September 2022 included additional gunshot sounds over helmet-cam footage taken from Australian commandos during a 2012 deployment in Afghanistan.
The review also looked at whether the editing of an interview with former US Drug Enforcement Administration leader Bret Hamilton in one of the 7.30 stories was misleading.
The review on the ‘Line of Fire’ stories was conducted by Alan Sunderland, who issued an interim report today.
The report found that five additional sounds of gunshots were “inadvertently but inaccurately” inserted into footage of a commando firing from a helicopter. Sunderland agreed with the ABC’s earlier claims of an “editing error” rather than any deliberate attempt to misled.
“To be clear, I find no evidence that anybody, at any stage, made a conscious or deliberate decision to introduce additional gunshots,” Sunderland found.
“It appears to be an inadvertent consequence of attempts to create clean, accurate and effective sequences in the story.”
Sunderland writes: “I have found no evidence to support the conclusion that any of this was done at the direction of the journalists involved or on the initiative of the video editor in order to doctor or deliberately distort the depiction of the events that occurred.
“On the contrary, what evidence there is suggests it was not a deliberate editorial decision to include additional gunshot audio in order to mislead or deceive.”
Sunderland believes these edits slipped through quality control because “there was nothing about the two scenes of shots being fired from a helicopter … that led anyone to believe that there was an issue to review, or to consider that the sequences may have been edited in a way that introduced additional gunshot audio”.
He finds “no evidence that anyone at the ABC … deliberately doctored, falsified, manipulated or distorted information, material or evidence in order to mislead audiences.
“On the contrary, there was significant care taken to ensure the stories were checked, discussed, reviewed and upwardly referred.”
Justin Stevens
ABC’s news director Justin Stevens apologised for the edit following the release of the interim report.
“The ABC sincerely regrets and apologises for the editing errors in the video clips, including to members of the 2nd Commando Regiment. The video has been removed.”
Stevens also apologised for the placement of Bret Hamilton’s final comment in an interview “that alleged war crimes should always be investigated”, which the review found “was not in proper context and therefore did not accurately represent him as talking about allegations of war crimes in general rather than referring to any specific allegations.” This was therefore “potentially misleading”.
Stevens said: “ABC News sincerely regrets and apologises to Mr Hamilton as well as our audience members for this. That was not the meaning we intended to convey.
“A correction will be published on the Corrections and Clarifications page regarding the editing errors and an Editor’s Note will be appended clarifying the context of Mr Hamilton’s comment.”
Sunderland made five recommendations in the report:
- Editorial policies and guidance should be reviewed to ensure that the importance of maintaining the integrity of crucial source material is maintained, particularly in investigative stories.
- Training should be reviewed, in particular for non-editorial staff working in investigative areas, to ensure everyone is aware of key editorial principles, including the need to maintain the integrity of source material.
- Editing practices should be reviewed to ensure there is regular, timely and detailed face-to-face contact between editors, reporters and researchers during the editing process.
- When multi-platform stories are being prepared, consistent and equal scrutiny should be applied to all elements of the story across all platforms.
- News should review the guidance note on interviews and discuss.
Sunderland praised the report, despite the editing errors.
“The Line of Fire stories covered issues of the highest importance, dealing with the behaviour of Australian troops in a conflict overseas. They were of public importance at the time the stories were published and broadcast, and they remain of public importance now,” the review states.
“Although no individuals were identified in the stories themselves, the issues raised — the possible killing of prisoners, possible actions that may have breached the rules of engagement and possibly inappropriate discussions of unidentified ‘quotas’ in the lead-up to missions — were significant and important.”
Stevens said the ABC “stands by the vital importance of its investigations into the alleged conduct of Australian soldiers. The editing errors, while deeply regrettable, do not weaken the value of the ABC’s reporting over many years on these crucial issues.
“When errors occur we correct them and strive to ensure they are not repeated. In addition to Mr Sunderland’s recommendations I will be looking into any further actions we may need to take to ensure this does not happen again.
“We must always continue to encourage our journalists to be brave in their pursuit of important journalism on matters of significant public interest that, if it weren’t for their work, would never otherwise see the light of day.”
SUBSCRIBE
Sign up to our free daily update to get the latest in media and marketing.
… “inadvertently but inaccurately”? what a joke it is when the ABC news department investigates itself and answers to no one …
Who is the bloke who did the report? What connection has he had past or present with the ABC. Calling it an independent report means nothing without context.
How can 5 extra gunshots “inadvertently” appear in audio without human intervention particularly when it adds weight to the narrative the ABC was pushing.
Sounds like an ABC whitewash