I noticed numerous instances of viewer manipulation in the 7:30 NSW report on CSG on 16th May.
The mixing of audio of Minister Roberts on the steps of the NSW parliament with celebrating Bentley protesters gave the false impression that the Minister was performing a laudable act.
In my opinion, the reality is that Minister Roberts' performance was one of the low points of NSW Government in the last 50 years. I attach my letter to Minister Roberts asking him to justify himself when , according to my cursory reading of The NSW Onshore Petroleum Act, he has not acted in accordance with a law that is peculiarly relevant to his own department. There are a myriad other causes for concern as I outline in my letter to Minister Roberts, as attached.
I was also particularly disappointed that in the transition between the sub-story about Metgasco's licence and the separate story about Leichardt Resources that a sufficient distinction was not drawn between the two. This had the effect of negatively endorsing the Metgasco affair by the Leichhardt report.
In truth, Metgasco has invested around $100 million in resource development, it is a listed company with approximately 450 million shares. Leichardt Resources on the other hand , according to reports made by The Australian, is "a $100 company run by a Brisbane lawyer in his spare time."
Come on ABC....you can do better than that!
Yours sincerely,
I RECEIVED THIS RESPONSE
Thanks for your email.
We’ll have a look at that 7.30 story and see if it’s something for MW.
Please keep in touch with your ideas and feedback.
Sally Virgoe - MW
MY SUGGESTION
If you agree with my comments then you can contact media watch too. Perhaps, if enough people do so in a sensible manner, there will be a greater chance that they will air the matter in the interests of improving reporting standards . Here is e-mail address and link to 7:30 NSW report.
I AM NOW GOING TO SEND THE E-MAIL BELOW WITH THIS FURTHER ANALYSIS
Dear Mediawatch,
Following my previous e-mail communication, with my letter to Minister Roberts attached, I would like to provide an in depth analysis of the story reported by the ABC on their 7:30 NSW program dated 16th May 2014 which can be found on the program’s website and where the title of the link is
“CSG back down at Bentley heralded as victory for people power.”
My thoughts about the looming NSW gas crisis and antics of the NSW governments of both persuasions is dealt with in my letter. A key player in this whole affair is the media and particularly the non-commercial media such as the ABC who have the considerable advantage of not being captive of profit making pressure. Being funded by taxpayers, I believe the ABC has the prime obligation to report accurately and incisively without trickery, particularly so where the viewers are forced to make important and difficult decisions about their future wellbeing.
I have prepared an analysis of the time line of the story in the following table:
SEE UPLOADED IMAGE
My observations are as follows:
The title of the link to the program suggests that it is mainly about Bentley which is the drilling site that was intended to be explored by Metgasco. A close review of the program suggests that it was originally a stand alone story about Leichardt Resources that was made prior to the 15th of May and that it had the Metgasco story cobbled on to it when the events of 15th of May transpired. If you are able to make the distinction between the two stories in the report it is apparent that the Leichardt Resources story was technically complex with aerial shots of farms, relaxed interviews and footage that was geographically spread. Clearly that story would have taken longer to prepare than the barely two days that passed between the moment of Minister Robert’s statement outside Parliament on the 15th of May and the broadcast by 7:30 NSW on the 16th of May. It follows that the Leichardt Resources story was made before 15th of May, perhaps well before. The total story lasted for 9 minutes and 22 seconds. Of that, the time dedicated to the Leichardt Resources story was a total of around 7 minutes and 4 seconds. The time dedicated to the Metgasco story was 1 minute and 51 seconds. In percentage terms the time dedicated to Metgasco was only 19.8% of the total whereas the time dedicated to Leichardt Resources was 75.4% of the total.
The introduction by Quentin Dempster began with Metgasco.
After the brief introduction, the leading story was Metgasco with the celebratory and warming pictures of a happy crowd with the glorious voice over phrase “it’s been a week for people power.” The celebrations are overlaid with the voiceover of Minister Roberts making his announcement outside Parliament. We then merge into the footage of Minister Roberts which I think he will live to regret. Before the end of his statement we hear the background sound of Bentley protestors applauding….applause that happened far away in the Northern Rivers, in reality, some time later. That the sound was overlaid at the end of Minister Roberts’ statement gave the impression that they were applauding at the heart of democracy. The tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
Of course, it is pleasing to see happy people~but I wonder whether you captured this at the expense of getting to the real story. My reading of the report is that you failed to notice the real gravity of the situation. You made the actions of Mr.Roberts appear laudable and you completely missed the point that this was arguably one of the lowest points of NSW Government in the last 50 years. On a cursory reading of the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991, the Minister is required to follow certain protocols before suspending an exploration licence. It appears that these important steps were not followed. Moreover, this statutory regulation, in black and white, is peculiarly the legislation that he and his department are charged with upholding.
By modifying what appears to be the original story about Leichardt Resources and blending in the Metgasco story I suggest that some of the points you made about Leichardt Resources have filtered into the Metgasco story infecting the brand name of the latter with the antics of the former. I find this unacceptable and I believe that you owe Metgasco an apology. I believe that the title of the story should not have inferred that it was mainly about Metgasco, because judging by the time dedicated to it, it clearly was not. I believe that a clear distinction should have been made between the two and, if anything, the Metgasco story should have been treated more as a footnote than the main event.
TV media has the liberty to convey emotive messages by the tone of voice, by voiceover or by use of background sounds. It has the liberty of juggling the sequence of edited images so that the order in which they are shown do not necessarily represent the actual timeline of the events reported. It has the liberty of juxtaposing images so that the content of one affects the meaning of the other. These are liberties that can be misused to add a message that the story is intended to convey rather than conveying the true facts. When reporting on important matters these liberties must be used judiciously or else the story may misrepresent or be unfairly suggestive or even border on propaganda. Whether intended or not, I suggest that the editing of the report enjoyed these liberties excessively.
At approximately 1 minute and 39 seconds through the report, in my humble opinion, Phillipa MacDonald wielded her voice a little too sternly, much like a boarding school matron, saying of Metgasco “it didn’t consult with the local community.” There was no qualification in her statement, no use of the word alleged or the phrase “in the opinion of” .This dictate was then followed by much jubilation and applause. To the uncritical viewer I suggest this might have given the impression of justice when, as I have already noted, this was a day that the law was broken.
At approximately 2 minutes and 7 seconds we pass to footage that looks as if it belonged to the original Leichardt Resources story. It is only the voiceover from Phillipa MacDonald which suggests that the subject that the new talking head, Penny Blatchford, is addressing is the “new compliance unit” set up by Minister Roberts. However, by juxtaposing the celebrating Bentley protestors and the idyllic pictures of cows grazing with Penny Blatchford’s comments it is easy to interpret, in a tired moment, that the “signal” that the interviewee was talking about was the suspension of Metgasco’s licence. I think it would have been clearer to not juxtapose the two and I also think it would have been fairer if the editor had allowed Penny’s statement to begin at its beginning so we could be sure that she was really talking about what the voiceover states that she was talking about. Who knows what can be done with editing! Penny’s reference to “ICAC” and the improper public announcement of the referral of the Metgasco project to “ICAC” may also have served as an association the viewer might have made between the subject of her statement ,the Bentley protestors.
At around 7 minutes and 7 seconds we find Minister Roberts again outside Parliament serving as the other bookend and assembling everything in between as though it belonged on the same shelf. At approximately 7 minutes and 20 seconds we pass to yet another part of the original Leichardt Resources story where we are introduced to Peter Martin a former petroleum executive …..as if this has got anything to do with it. Why even raise his former profession? Perhaps to give the impression that he has expertise and authority on all things “hydro-carbon”. Or perhaps to suggest that even the well healed are victims. What is your point? And then we really start digressing by introducing Hume coal with ghastly associations with black clouds. Just a second…. I thought the title of this report was -
“CSG backdown at Bentley heralded as victory for people power.”
- or is someone playing with my mind?
To close the report we have an interesting piece of footwork. Apart from those idyllic shots of cows grazing again, busily playing on the subconscious mind, we land back at cheering Bentley protestors for 11 seconds with a quizzical shot of the aboriginal flag……what is that supposed to mean…it looked a tad patronizing to me. Then we see a group of cheering protestors that fades into the original interview with Penny Blatchford from the Leichardt Resources story saying “if they breach, then they should have the full force of the law come down on them and if that means cancelling a licence then, so be it.” Who or what is Penny talking about? She is talking about Leichardt Resources despite the fact that she has emerged ghostlike from the Bentley protestors.
The gas crisis that is approaching NSW is a serious matter. The time has come for the ABC to recognize that it has an important part to play in the debate. I fear that one day we shall look back with shame at how the ABC failed us by not being alert enough to its obligation to report on this fairly and comprehensively. The ABC…you are an important part of what makes Australia…live up to your responsibilities please.
MEL Price at posting:
4.3¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)