Australia’s media regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has found that the ABC breached its impartiality rules in a 2025 Four Corners episode about the redevelopment of the Australian War Memorial.

The ACMA investigation found that the episode ‘Sacrifice’ unduly favoured one perspective in its presentation. The ABC has strenuously disputed the finding.

The Four Corners episode investigated the management of a major redevelopment project by the War Memorial. The project, valued at $540 million, was controversial from the outset, for its initial business case in 2017, its costing and approval by the Morrison government, and for the way in which contracts were awarded and managed. There were also concerns about the design and focus of the upgrade.

At heart is a disagreement between ACMA and the ABC on whether the ABC’s reporting of an audit of the project by Australian National Audit Office was reported impartially.

ACMA said that the program “did not present contentious issues with due impartiality and provide audiences with sufficient context.” It argued that the program focused too much on the deficiencies found by the audit and that the ABC should have given more prominence to the positive comments in the audit report.

But the audit report was damning. It said that ministerial oversight was deliberately dodged and conflicts of interest were not appropriately managed.

Is this a case of blaming the messenger?

ACMA, in its usual practice, gave the ABC the opportunity to respond to an interim report. The final 80 page report includes the ACMA findings and the responses of the ABC and the ombudsman.

ACMA “found that the cumulative effect of the program’s framing, its use of strong and emotive language and its selection and differing treatment of interviewees unduly favoured critics of the redevelopment.”

While welcoming the finding that the program was accurate, the ABC stated that ACMA had created “an unworkable interpretation of impartiality” and imposed “false balance on public interest reporting.”

“It fails to understand the difference between an explanatory interview and an accountability interview and the obligation on public officials to be held to appropriate scrutiny. It also unfairly impugns the integrity of the reporter and fails to acknowledge the great efforts made by the program team to ensure impartiality.” 

ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks said that the ABC “was committed to constructively engaging with ACMA and has overwhelmingly accepted its rulings and acted on them in the past”. 

“However, the ABC does not accept this finding. 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.”

The report raises the thorny question of balance and impartiality.

The ABC’s editorial policies state that impartiality according to the recognised standards of objective journalism will address the following key issues:

• Independence
• Balance that follows the weight of evidence
• Fairness
• Keeping an open mind
• Presenting different perspectives over time

The term balance does not imply that a journalist should seek to find equivalence between two competing positions. That approach could lead to a serious distortion of an issue. It should not seek to give equal space to opponents in an issue, presenting them as equally valid.  Journalists sometimes dub this as “both-sideism”.

The complaint against the program came from Kim (Bomber) Beazley, who was appointed Council Chair in 2022 after the project had been granted by the Morrison government.

The program remains available to see on iView. Have a look and make up your own minds.