[throwawaythekey]

The ABC are sadly incredibly biased.

A recent, prominent example is [1] where they edited footage to make it look like a soldier was shooting at an innocent civilian. They then appointed a 40 year abc/sbs veteran to investigate the incident who unsurprisingly found no wrong doing.

All of this on a topic that isn't even super political...

Granted they are still probably the best journalists in the country, but when you can't trust them to not alter primary evidence, or admit real fault when something has gone wrong, you cant really trust them for much.

For day to day stuff I still find them an ok source, it just needs to be taken with a very heavy dose of salt.

[1] https://7news.com.au/spotlight/7news-spotlight-abc-launches-...

[protocolture]

Their biggest fault was giving back the filing cabinet.

>where they edited footage to make it look like a soldier was shooting at an innocent civilian.

In your link the ABC is claiming the footage wasnt edited by them. I mean its still a bit of weak journalism to publish it. Did that ever get resolved either way?

[throwawaythekey]

> In your link the ABC is claiming the footage wasnt edited by them.

I'll admit I don't fully understand what they were claiming/how it changed over time but they later issued an apology for the incident [1].

From what I can work out the thrust of the abc claim is "don't blame our journalists, the editors on multiple occasions accidentally did this for no reason at all and we then failed to catch it".

Then midway through the apology they pivot to blaming twitter, or at least that is the flow of the guardian article.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/sep/17/abc-australion...