Skip to main content
Editorial Policies

Objectivity and impartiality

Share

Introduction

The ABC has a requirement set out in the ABC Act to “ensure that the gathering and presentation … of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism”. 

A commitment to impartiality and objectivity is a fundamental principle separating journalism from activism. 

Impartiality is central to the ABC’s purpose and to its reputation as a credible and trustworthy public service media organisation. The essential process that leads to impartiality in journalism is objectivity.

Impartiality requires that the ABC:

  • Takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and non-discrimination.
  • Is never seen to be advocating for any particular outcome in contentious political, policy or social debates.
  • Provides accurate, fair and unbiased information and a wide range of relevant perspectives to help audiences make up their own minds on controversial issues.

The Editorial Policies set out five impartiality standards:

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives within a reasonable timeframe, aiming to reach a similar audience, so that no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.3 Take care in the presentation of analysis and commentary. Do not present them as the editorial opinion of the ABC.

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

The ABC aspires to the highest editorial standards. This note provides guidance on interpreting and applying those standards. It sets out the best-practice approach to impartiality.

Scope

The impartiality standards apply to news, current affairs and factual content and to information broadcast or published by the ABC across all platforms. 

The standards do not apply to personal use of social media or to other activities of ABC staff in a personal capacity. External activities of staff can, however, affect the perception of impartiality of staff and the ABC. Staff should be aware of the guidelines on the personal use of social media, external work and the Code of Conduct.

Hallmarks of impartiality

Impartiality is achieved when your content: is accurate, is independent of improper influence from any external interests, does not advocate for any particular outcome on a contentious issue or unduly favour any one perspective, and is fair and respectful of differences of opinion.

The hallmarks of impartiality are a balance that follows the weight of evidence, fair treatment, open-mindedness and opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.

Impartiality according to the recognised standards of objective journalism will address the following key issues.

Independence

Standard 1 of the Editorial Policies requires the ABC to ‘maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC’ and to ‘ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests’.  The ABC’s editorial independence is fundamental to achieving objectivity and impartiality.  

Balance that follows the weight of evidence

The Editorial Policies Principles state that a hallmark of impartiality is ‘a balance that follows the weight of evidence’.

This should be understood as a requirement for objectivity and against ‘false balance’.

This is not an injunction for equal time and allows the favouring of certain perspectives under some circumstances.

More on balance that follows the weight of evidence...

This concept is very familiar in law and science but is also applicable in journalism. 

It applies principally where the factual basis of claims is disputed, or the relevance and importance of established facts is disputed.  

The legal concepts of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘on the balance of probabilities’ are useful guides to determining how to treat contentious matters. 

A matter which is beyond reasonable doubt can be treated as fact and does not require contrary views to be reported. 

Examples include people who have been convicted of a criminal offence by a properly constituted court; that the earth is warming as a result of human activity; or that the Holocaust occurred. These statements do not need to be ‘balanced’ with contrary views. 

Statements that contradict established facts should be challenged and failure to do so may show a lack of due impartiality.

An example would be claims that measles vaccines cause autism. Such claims should not be published or if they are, their falsity should be pointed out. 

Assessing the ‘balance of probabilities’ and weighing disputed evidence is much more difficult. 

This process allows journalists, contributors and other content makers to come to conclusions and present interpretations of contentious issues when conducting analysis. It informs judgements of how much prominence to give to different facts and theories.

When assessing the weight of evidence on a given topic:

  • Consult recognised experts.
  • Assess the credibility and authority of experts and sources.
  • Attribute your sources.
  • Do not ignore credible evidence or exclude significant perspectives that do not conform with your conclusions. 
  • Inform the audience as much as possible of all relevant evidence.
  • Present the principal relevant perspectives in the community. 
  • People’s lived experience, including your own, should inform your judgements but not determine them.
  • Cite your evidence.
  • Remember your conclusion is a probability, not a fact. 
  • Don’t overstate your certainty.

There are occasions when it is not possible to satisfactorily weigh evidence on contentious issues or factual disputes. This is often the case in daily news where reporters may have neither the time nor the expertise to make judgements about the relative strength of disputed facts or interpretations. In these situations:

  • Present different sides of an argument without making judgements either explicitly or implicitly on their relative merit.
  • Demonstrably false and factually inaccurate statements should be identified and called out as such.
  • Use experts and other informed parties to comment on the relative merits of arguments.
  • Ensure, as much as possible, that all significant perspectives are reported.
Case study – climate change

For some time, there was genuine dispute about both the extent of global warming and the role of human-produced greenhouse gases.

By the early 2000s the weight of scientific evidence concerning human-induced warming was overwhelming. At that point asserting the existence of anthropogenic warming ceased to be contentious, despite ongoing scepticism among some in the community. 

However, the reality of warming does not imply or dictate any particular policy or community response. The issues around what to do about climate change remain highly contentious. Policy and political debates should be assessed objectively and presented impartially.

For instance, the use of nuclear energy to transition to a low carbon economy has become a mainstream political issue in recent times. As technology changes some argue it is becoming more feasible for Australia and there is growing political support for its introduction. 

Hence its contentiousness has increased significantly and the need for objective and impartial analysis has become greater. 

Table of contents

Fairness

Our stories and programs can have profound impacts on the people and organisations we report on and discuss. Treating all people with respect, honesty and integrity is fundamental to maintaining trust in the ABC. 

More on fairness...

Fair treatment refers to the manner and style in which contentious issues and key stakeholders are treated. 

Examples of unfair treatment that may affect impartiality include: 

  • Not providing stakeholders opportunities to comment on issues or allegations that directly affect them. 
  • Rudeness and not treating people with respect. 
  • Not giving interviewees a reasonable chance to answer questions and explain their point of view. 
  • Failing to provide sufficient context to explain points of view or inaccurately summarising those views. 
  • Misrepresenting a person’s or organisation’s views. 
  • Using language, images or music that is emotive, hyperbolic or inflammatory, which unduly colours perception of the issues or individuals that are the subject of the story. 

Read the Fair and Honest Dealing policy here and the guidance on Fair Opportunity to Respond here. 

Table of contents

Keeping an open mind

The most important hallmark of objectivity and impartiality is keeping an open mind.  

Perhaps the greatest danger to achieving impartiality is starting with a conclusion or hypothesis and then seeking to prove it without properly considering contrary evidence, different interpretations of the evidence and inconvenient perspectives on issues.  

This is called ‘confirmation bias’.  

More on keeping an open mind...

We are wired as humans to believe what we are told by people with whom we have empathy or sympathy. 

And we are naturally inclined to believe evidence that seems to conform to our pre-existing theories or beliefs. 

The most important tool in an objective process is scepticism. Applying appropriate scepticism in order to accurately interpret evidence is fundamental to objective journalism. 

Often journalists do not put the same effort into disproving theories as they do into proving them. This is a natural outcome of the process of seeking to confirm stories. But it can be a trap. To avoid it: 

  • Seek evidence that contradicts your thesis as rigorously as you seek evidence that confirms it. 
  • Don’t make assumptions about people’s motivations.  
  • Double check your facts. 
  • Seek corroboration of all claims even if you find your contact or interviewee believable. 
  • Be very careful interpreting documents, particularly if they relate to complicated transactions or specialist knowledge. 
  • Seek advice from independent experts. 
  • Always be prepared to change your mind or drop the story if the evidence doesn’t conform to your preconceptions.  
  • Be aware of and challenge your own biases and prejudices. 

Table of contents

Presenting different perspectives over time

Standard 4.2 says the ABC should ‘Present a diversity of perspectives within a reasonable timeframe, aiming to reach a similar audience, so that no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented’.

When possible, efforts should be made within each piece of content to include diverse perspectives or at a minimum to indicate to audiences when issues and opinions are contentious. More detail is included later in this guidance on contentiousness.

Which perspectives are relevant, how much time or space they are given and how much time is reasonable to elapse between different perspectives will vary depending on the nature of the content and platform and the level of contentiousness of the issue. 

More on presenting different perspectives over time...

Significant perspectives 

A ‘perspective’ can be a company, government, political party, or a person or community affected by a disputed policy, but it can also be an analysis, a sectional interest or simply an opinion on a contentious issue that has significant currency in the community.

For most stories, it will be fairly clear who the principal relevant people or organisations are. They will probably include:

  • Authority; The people who have legitimate power to decide outcomes.
  • Experts; People or bodies with recognised expertise in the matter to hand.
  • Influencers; People with influence by virtue of their public standing.
  • Affected parties; People, companies or organisations that will be affected.

All these groups represent or include significant perspectives on issues but not all can or should be included in every story.  A proportionate representation will depend on the length and type of story and its particular focus.

To assess which perspectives are essential in your content, it is very important to have a clear idea of what the key issues in a story or discussion are, so you can ensure all the relevant and significant perspectives are represented.

While it is not possible to quantify when a perspective becomes significant, if particular views are impacting on political outcomes or provoking demonstrable social change, they are likely to be considered significant.

However, simply because a public figure such as an elected politician holds an extreme view does not make it significant.

Presenting a diversity of perspectives over a reasonable time 

When it is not practical or possible to include the principal perspectives in a single work, it may be reasonable to rely on them being presented in other content. 

What is reasonable will depend on a number of factors:

  • Format
  • Audience
  • Platform
  • Contentiousness
  • Topicality

Format. A broader range of perspectives would generally be expected within a long current affairs documentary or a panel program than in a short news story, vertical video or radio interview. Likewise, in digital content the expectation for a broad range of perspectives is higher in a long feature than in a short breaking news story. For instance:

  • A Four Corners program examining a major public policy issue should seek to present all principal relevant perspectives within the story. Conversely, radio news on a breaking story will likely present different perspectives in different stories over hours or days.
  • Limited series will be considered as one work. For instance, the If You’re Listening podcasts can present different perspectives in different episodes.
  • Panel programs as much as possible should seek different perspectives within each program. This is not a rigid rule though. A program like Q&A that discusses several issues in each episode may seek a diversity of perspectives on specific issues over time.
  • For single person interviews or panel interviews where all the guests broadly agree, interviewers should challenge guests and play ‘devil’s advocate’ as well as seeking interviews with guests with different perspectives.
  • For short form news content, such as vertical video intended for social media, including TikTok and Instagram, there is still an expectation that key contrasting perspectives are presented. There should at least be an indication that a particular perspective is contested or that other perspectives exist. Generally, this will be possible within a single piece of work. When it is not possible editors should ensure they plan to present different perspectives across a number of clips within a reasonable period of time. Helping audiences navigate to other ABC content – for example through an online link – can also assist in presenting a diversity of perspectives.

Audience expectations. Would the audience expect to see a range of perspectives in one program or article? Is there likely to be audience overlap with content in different programs? For instance, it is reasonable to expect that different radio current affairs programs have significantly overlapping audiences. On the other hand, it is likely that Hack and the Religion and Ethics Report would have less overlap.

Platform. ABC audiences are increasingly fragmented across different platforms. You cannot assume that audiences who see or hear a perspective on one platform will see or hear a different perspective on another platform.

ABC content is also increasingly distributed on third-party platforms where the ABC has less control over the curation of our content. This increases the desirability of including key differing perspectives within a single piece of content wherever possible. 

Contentiousness and topicality. Is this a highly contentious and current issue that is being widely discussed and reported across different programs and platforms? If so, it may be reasonable to rely to some extent, but not totally, on the coverage of other programs. If the issue is less contentious – e.g. a long-running historical controversy – the timeframe within which it is reasonable to present a diversity of perspectives is longer, and it’s more reasonable to rely on other programs over that longer period presenting alternative perspectives.

Commissioning. Editors and Executive Producers have a significant responsibility to ensure that the overall coverage of significant issues on their platforms include a diverse range of perspectives. 

Table of contents

Objective journalism - a process to achieve impartiality

Objectivity is a process that requires assembling, assessing and analysing demonstrable evidence that reflects on the truth or significance of an assertion, issue or opinion. This is followed by presenting the evidence and any conclusions drawn from it in a transparent way to the audience.

Objective journalism recognises that everyone has different values, biases and perspectives on disputed facts and issues. Journalists are humans with beliefs that affect how they see the world.  Be aware of and take account of your own biases while still rigorously testing information, assertions and hypotheses with evidence-based, open-minded and fair journalism. 

Objectivity is the process that leads to impartiality and should be employed in every story. 

When preparing a story ask yourself,  

  • How will I mitigate any personal biases I might have about the subject? 
  • Have I considered alternative views and evidence to my own or the dominant view?  
  • Have I explored all possible explanations and narratives to the issues or events I’m examining? 
  • Have all the relevant perspectives been identified, and have any been left out? 
  • Am I giving all affected parties a fair opportunity to participate or comment? 
  • Are my questions presented without pre-judgement to help audiences make up their own mind? 
  • Is the language and tone I am using, or the audio and video I have selected, overly emotive, hyperbolic or inflammatory in a way that unduly colours the perception of the issues or individuals that are the subject of the story? 

When collecting data and evidence for a story, 

  • Present the evidence accurately and with appropriate context, including conveying any relevant limitations or qualifications. 
  • Seek corroboration of all claims  
  • Remain skeptical to the end - we have unconscious bias towards believing people from similar backgrounds to ourselves. 
  • Find ways to test your approach and the framing of your story by seeking input from others in your team or your manager. Be open to different views and feedback. 
  • Take input from your team or manager as to whether something or someone relevant is missing. 

More on objective journalism...

Critiques of objectivity

Objectivity entails excluding subjective judgement, values and bias to the greatest extent possible. It accepts that all facts matter and all significant perspectives should be recognised and respected. 

But objectivity has been challenged on the basis that the implicit judgements in the selection of content, the weight they are given, the significance they are attributed, and the authority given to different perspectives are inescapably affected by the experiences, backgrounds and biases of the people making those decisions. 

An objective process recognises that no one story or one perspective can ever be the final word on a subject. Content makers should accept that new events and new evidence can change what seems to be true or important and that a commitment to objectivity includes searching for that new evidence and perspective to test what we think we know.

For these reasons, content makers must recognise that perfect objectivity remains an aspiration. But when approached thoughtfully and fairly, an objective process is the best guarantee of coming as close to the truth as possible, maintaining trust and representing the diversity and complexity of our subjects.

Objectivity and personal experience

Objectivity does not mean that personal experience should not inform those analytical judgements. What journalists and content makers witness and experience themselves can be powerful evidence that informs their analysis and enriches their storytelling.

However, it is important to emphasise that any one perspective is intrinsically partial and doesn’t represent the whole truth. While you may draw on your own experience to better understand and report a story, you should always respect and include all relevant perspectives even if they conflict with your own experience. 

Particularly in mainstream news and current affairs, reporters should remember that they are not the story and expressing personal opinions detracts from the ABC’s primary purpose of informing audiences on matters of public interest.

Table of contents

Personal perspective and experience

Bearing witness has always been a legitimate part of the journalistic tool kit. 

Whether in our professional or personal lives, many newsworthy issues and events affect ABC staff directly. The insights and knowledge can be harnessed to produce compelling content and to contribute depth and credibility to analysis and storytelling. 

Drawing on personal experience while maintaining objectivity is possible if an objective process of journalism is followed. It should enrich and provide diversity to analysis, but it should not be at the expense of fairly presenting other relevant perspectives. 

The traditional expectation that journalists and other content-makers are not ‘part of the story’ is a good principle to follow in most circumstances. 

More on personal perspective and experience...

Following the process of objective journalism, as outlined earlier, will allow you to draw on your own experience while still maintaining impartiality.

You should also remember these other guidelines.

  • Avoid the first person in mainstream reporting. 
  • The story usually is not about you.
  • Think of yourself as a witness, not the focus of the story.
  • Your experience is evidence that must be weighed against the evidence of other people’s experience.
  • Your experiences should inform the storytelling, not be the story.

There will be occasions when first-person narrative is appropriate. It will usually be in a feature, documentary or if you are being interviewed. Impartiality is still important,  particularly in news and current affairs content. Follow these guidelines.

  • Avoid advocacy.
  • Be respectful of different opinions and perspectives.
  • The purpose is to inform not persuade.
  • Be clear and transparent that you are presenting a personal perspective and not speaking on behalf of the ABC.
  • Upwardly refer to your manager and clearly define the boundaries of your narrative.

Managers must be ready to support staff as public disclosure of personal information risks harassment and online abuse.

Table of contents

Diversity of perspectives within content teams

The ABC includes people with a wide range of personal experience, preferences, education, comparative wealth, family background and many other factors. This diversity strengthens ABC content.

Collectively, it makes us aware of our blind spots and results in content that is more empathetic and more truthful.

More on diversity of perspectives within content teams...

Drawing on the diverse experience of staff and seeking diversity among the people we interview enriches our content and is key to fulfilling our aim to “Present a diversity of perspectives … so that no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented”.

The best journalism draws on different perspectives and experiences to accurately report on the world as it is, not as one person might perceive it. 

To ensure diversity is used to strengthen content: 

  • Stay focussed on the objective of creating engaging and trustworthy content and do not be diverted into judging each other’s experiences or beliefs.
  • Work as a team, respectfully and rigorously testing ideas, from commissioning to publication
  • Keep an open mind. Try to be aware of your own unconscious biases and don’t be defensive if they’re called out by fellow members of staff
  • Treat all your colleagues and their opinions with respect
  • Seek and create space for hearing a diversity of views and different experiences in your team.

Table of contents

Due impartiality         

Standard 4.1 requires news and information to be gathered and presented with due impartiality. It is closely related to Standard 4.5 which says the ABC should not unduly favour one perspective over another. 

Due impartiality means achieving the substance of impartiality rather than the appearance of impartiality.  

While ‘impartiality’ essentially means the ABC does not take sides and should not engage in advocacy, ‘due impartiality’ recognises that not all opinions or assertions should be given the same weight in all circumstances. We do not ask or expect content makers to seek false balance or fall into “both sides” reporting. Due impartiality will be what is adequate and appropriate in each individual circumstance.  

The ABC commissions, produces, broadcasts and publishes a wide range of different types of content, and the requirements for impartiality are vastly different across this broad spectrum of output. 

So ‘due impartiality’ is principally about determining the appropriate level of impartiality that applies to each particular circumstance, based on factors such as what type of content it is and what the audience expectations would be.

More on due impartiality...

Due impartiality does not require a binary balance, equal treatment or equal time. There can be good reasons to favour or highlight certain viewpoints, evidence or facts in particular stories or programs. 

Due impartiality is determined by a wide range of factors: 

  • the type, subject and nature of the content; 
  • the circumstances in which the content is made and presented; 
  • the likely audience expectations of the content; 
  • the degree to which issues are contentious; 
  • the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and 
  • the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate 

The likely audience expectations of impartiality will differ in different contexts such as: an item in a news bulletin, a formal political interview, a point-of-view documentary, a panel discussion or a one-to-one conversational exchange on local radio.  

The highest level of impartiality is required of news and factual content in relation to controversial and/or significant matters of public debate.  

Accuracy and contextual accuracy are strong indicators that content  is duly impartial.  

Table of contents

Contentiousness

The requirement for impartiality relates to contentious issues that involve disputes over conflicting values, facts, policies, reputations, and interests. They can often be characterised by public debate, polarised views, evidence of high emotion and contradictory evidence. 

The greater the degree of contentiousness, the more important it is for ABC content to be impartial. 

More on contentiousness...

  • Assessing the contentiousness of different issues and opinions is a key factor in determining due impartiality. 
  • Issues can be contentious even if they are not prominent in the news cycle at a particular time. Diverse viewpoints should still be presented. 
  • The contentiousness of an issue can change over time as a result of social change, new evidence and changing political forces.  
  • Publishing potentially offensive opinions must be weighed against the harm and offence they may cause. 
Case study – same-sex marriage 

The contentiousness of same-sex marriage peaked in the lead-up to the 2017 postal survey but has significantly reduced following the passage of legislation legalising same-sex unions.  

While some people undoubtedly still oppose the changes, it has ceased to be a significant political issue or matter of public debate. Therefore, the requirement for different perspectives in content referencing same-sex marriage no longer applies in most contexts. 

At the time of the survey, the ABC worked hard to present a wide diversity of perspectives over short periods of time. We also strongly discouraged public advocacy for either position among staff both in their work and in public forums. 

The same-sex marriage coverage was particularly sensitive as much of the audience found some of the attitudes and arguments being presented distressing and offensive.  

Due impartiality required that the perspectives of opponents as well as proponents of the proposal were fairly presented but that misinformation was not presented unchallenged.  

Prejudicial and discriminatory comments also had to be treated with great care. The ABC cannot be seen to condone discrimination or publish hate speech.  

Inevitably, some people were offended by comments that were broadcast. However, the potential for offence had to be weighed against the requirement for due impartiality and free speech.  

That meant the most offensive comments and misinformation did not need to be published but the most significant perspectives in the community had to be presented and analysed despite the fact that some people found them offensive.

Table of contents

Other guidance on the standards

It is important to understand this additional guidance when applying a process of objective journalism to achieve impartiality.

Unavailability of representatives/spokespeople

A common dilemma is what to do when key people or organisations decline to do interviews or respond to questions on the record. The refusal of one side in a story to offer attributable comment shouldn’t be allowed to suppress reporting.

A perspective doesn’t always need to be articulated by the person directly affected if they are not able or willing to present their perspective themselves. Often someone else can represent those same views or the affected person or organisation may have presented their view elsewhere or previously. You should inform the audience of different perspectives as best you can.

More on unavailability of representatives...

Representative organisations may be useful for providing perspectives if actual participants such as companies or governments are unavailable. But they have no automatic right to participate, particularly where the objective is to hold a responsible (third-party) entity to account.

How you do this will depend on the type of program, the contentiousness of the issue and how much coverage the missing perspective has had elsewhere.

Transparency is important. It is usually appropriate to tell audiences when efforts have been made to present a key perspective through an interview or a response to questions. 

If the questions you are asking relate to allegations of wrongdoing this is covered by standard 5.3 Fair Dealing and related guidance.

Table of contents

Impartiality in interviews

Stand-alone interviews can be seen to favour the perspective of the interviewee. The purpose of the interview is likely to get their perspective and the audience would expect them to be given a reasonable opportunity to state their case. Impartiality can be achieved by a combination of challenging questioning and conducting other interviews at other times.

More information can be found in the Interviewing Guidance Note.

Dealing with marginal or offensive views

While the ABC aims to fairly present all significant views in the community, it may choose not to broadcast or publish views that are offensive or harmful. However, the ABC strongly believes in free speech and robust debate.  The ABC may choose not to publish particular statements because they may incite discrimination, be harmful or be particularly offensive,  however, the ABC does not ban or ‘de-platform’ people. 

This is discussed further in the Harm & Offence standard and in the guidance on Hate Speech.

Constructive/solutions journalism

The ABC takes no editorial stance on contentious issues, but highlighting social problems, corruption and other demonstrable dysfunctions in society is a core responsibility of public interest journalism. 

Constructive or solutions journalism and documentaries focus on the possible responses to recognised social and political issues. Usually, the existence of the problem is broadly acknowledged but the solutions are debated and contentious. 

Common examples are climate change, domestic violence, and school education. In all these cases the premise for the need for action is uncontested but the solutions are controversial.

Every possible solution is debatable and should be treated with the same objectivity and impartiality as any other story.

Documentaries 

The ABC commissions and acquires a wide range of documentaries and other factual programs, many of which examine contentious issues. Contemporary documentary filmmaking is increasingly diverse in styles, forms and approaches. Documentaries may be observational, presenter-led, investigative, comedic, personal, works of advocacy or social commentary, highly constructed and following an established format, or more experimental. They may explore their subjects from particular perspectives or with particular purposes, such as exposing injustice or promoting social change.

Applying the impartiality standards to such a varied genre requires nuance and careful consideration. Due impartiality is assessed with regard to the specifics of each case, including the level of contentiousness of the subject matter and the filmmaker’s chosen editorial approach. Depending on its creative and stylistic aims, a documentary may legitimately favour one perspective over others in a way which is not undue but rather an intentional editorial choice. In such cases, consideration must be given to the provision of a diversity of perspectives within a reasonable timeframe, often by commissioning or acquiring complementary content on the same subject.

Analysis vs opinion

Standard 4.3 states: “Take care in the presentation of analysis and commentary. Do not present them as the editorial opinion of the ABC”.

The key difference between analysis and opinion is that conclusions in analysis are based on demonstrable evidence and are not influenced by any personal, political or sectional interest or opinion.

Analysis and opinion content written or presented by ABC staff should not advocate for particular outcomes on contentious issues.

More on analysis vs opinion...

Experienced or specialised reporters and presenters are often expected to provide analysis that makes judgements about contentious issues affecting the impact, effectiveness and motivations of policy, public figures, organisations and governments.

  • Analyse the evidence behind proposals and opinions so that audiences are equipped to make up their own minds. 
  • Different viewpoints and alternative evidence must be presented accurately and fairly, irrespective of the final conclusion in the analysis
  • Conclusions should be based on objective analysis that assesses outcomes, proposals and policies against stated objectives. 
  • Implicit in the process is the answering of a contentious question or testing of a hypothesis or assessing the significance of controversial assertions or actions. 
  • Analysis should show the evidence a conclusion is based on as well as evidence that contradicts those conclusions. 
  • Analysis should be seen to take account of all the evidence that makes an issue contentious.
  • Expressions of outrage or prescriptive commentary on contentious issues should be avoided. 
  • Do not tell people or organisations what they should do or pass judgement on them. 

For more information on writing or producing analysis see the guidance on Differentiating Between Factual Reporting, Analysis and Opinion.

Opinion in review content

The format and audience expectation of review programs, such as The Book Show or Media Watch will favour the perspective of the reviewer and there is no requirement to ‘balance’ different opinions. Reviews often represent one informed and specialist view of a cultural work or in the case of Media Watch, the media.

Table of contents

Status of guidance note

This Guidance Note, authorised by the Managing Director, is provided to assist interpretation of the Editorial Policies to which the Guidance Note relates. The Editorial Policies contain the standards enforceable under the ABC’s internal management processes and under the ABC’s complaints handling procedures.

It is expected that the advice contained in Guidance Notes will normally be followed. In a given situation there may be good reasons to depart from the advice. This is permissible so long as the standards of the Editorial Policies are met. In such situations, the matter should ordinarily be referred upwards. Any mandatory referrals specified in Guidance Notes must be complied with.

Issued: 22 July 2013, Revised: 24 January 2025

Share
Back to top

Footer