2GB ‘s Ben Fordham challenged the ABC’s Mediawatch for asking ‘ridiculous’ questions about a story he broke on Barnardo’s Mother of the Year award this week.
The popular charity ditched its quarter-century recognition of Australia’s mums, with the story broken by Barnardos’ own ambassador, Fordham, who dropped the exclusive on his breakfast show.
Mediawatch then went on to describe the “media pile on” about political correctness and quoted Barnados as “very disappointed” and “fuming.”
Responding to the Mediawatch story, Fordham had the following to say
Barnardos is pretty upset you took a courtesy email to you and revealed the decision on air without their permission. Did you want to respond to that?
Fordham: The premise of your question is ridiculous. Does the ABC have a policy of calling the sender of every email to ask permission before publishing? Did Louise Milligan get the Liberal Party to sign a permission slip before publishing her 4 Corners report?
Barnados emailed a detailed statement to 2GB saying “we have decided to bring the Mother of the Year event to an end” and explained “the celebration of mothers in the absence of others” didn’t align with their values in “our contemporary world”. The email was neither embargoed or sent in confidence. We gave Barnardos three days notice of our intention to publish the story. Our reporting was factual and compassionate.
The story obviously took off on 2GB, brekky TV, Telegraph, Sky News, etc- alotof people have been beating up on the charity. Any regrets about sparking that and the damage it may have done to them?
Fordham: Again, the premise of your question is ridiculous- even more so for a show purporting to be the arbiter of good journalism. Does the ABC have a policy of withholding stories if the subject of the story is going to suffer “damage”? If that’s now a pre-publication test, why did 4 Corners publish a story about the private lives of Liberal politicians causing great emotional distress to them, their wives, children, family and friends?
I’m not responsible for the editorial positions of “brekky TV, Telegraph, Sky News etc ..”. The word I used to describe the decision was “disappointing”, which I think was very fair and measured and supported by past winners of the award.
And can I ask if you want to stay on as an ambassador?
Fordham: Yes
Have you had any discussions with them on that?
Fordham: No
Subscribe to the radioinfo podcast on these platforms: Acast, Apple iTunes Podcasts, Podtail, Spotify, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, or wherever you get your podcasts.
As I understand it, Fordham received notice about Bernardos’ Mother of the Year award ending because he’s one of their ambassadors. Fordham then broke the news of the decision, which he called “disappointing”. Media Watch got hissy because he turned a charitable relationship into tacky tabloid journalism. It seems there’re lessons for everyone involved.
A hard lesson for Bernardos to either not appoint ambassadors like Fordham (who are useful for fundraising in good times) or to make it clear in writing the confidentiality issues involved in being an ambassador.
For Fordham, he needs to know that being a brand ambassador comes with certain ethical responsibilities that may content with his job as a journalist. And he needs to decide how he’ll react to a conflict BEFORE he takes on the ambassador role – not afterwards.
And Media Watch have been reminded that the ethical world they like to inhabit doesn’t have the same atmosphere as the one Fordham breaths. It’ll produce fewer gotcha stories but save some heartburning indignation in the long run.