The Australian Communications and Media Authority found that a 2025 Four Corners episode on the Australian War Memorial redevelopment breached public impartiality obligations, according to a Thursday morning statement from the regulator. Australian Broadcasting Corporation managing director Hugh Marks rejected the findings, warning that the decision could create a damaging chilling effect on investigative journalism.
Regulatory Findings on the Four Corners Sacrifice Episode
The media regulator investigated the March 2025 episode titled Sacrifice, which was led by reporter Mark Willacy. According to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the program failed in its analysis of the redevelopment consultation process, mishandled the selection and treatment of interviewees, and did not adequately explain an Australian National Audit Office report while primarily focusing on its deficiencies. Agency chair Nerida O’Loughlin stated that the cumulative effect of the program’s framing, its use of strong and emotive language, and its differing treatment of interviewees unduly favored critics of the redevelopment.
The investigation stemmed from a complaint made by Kim Beazley, who serves as the War Memorial chairman, a former Labor leader, a board director for defence company Luerssen, and an adviser to Lockheed Martin. During the program, interviewees alleged the renovations were turning the institution into a theme park for war and criticized a lack of oversight regarding a more than $500 million funding announcement made by the Scott Morrison government before an $11 million business case was completed. The broadcast also reported that the War Memorial faced criticism for accepting money from major weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems. However, the media watchdog determined that Four Corners conflated different stages of the consultation process, which likely left viewers confused about the accuracy of claims made by the Memorial’s director, Matt Anderson.
Did You Know? The Australian Communications and Media Authority noted that this decision marks the second time this year the regulator has found a Four Corners program in breach of its code of practice, following a 2024 episode titled Water Grab.
Broadcaster Pushback and Defense of Investigative Reporting
Australian Broadcasting Corporation leadership strongly defended the broadcast and stood by Mark Willacy, the Four Corners team, and the editorial processes that brought the program to air. According to the broadcaster, the program will remain online in its entirety. Managing director Hugh Marks slammed the regulator’s findings, arguing that the decision misinterprets the code of practice and imposes an unworkable standard on public interest reporting.
An Australian Broadcasting Corporation spokesperson stated that the media watchdog’s interpretation fails to distinguish between an explanatory interview and an accountability interview, undermining the obligation of public officials to face appropriate scrutiny. The broadcaster also highlighted that its own independent Ombudsman received three complaints regarding the program in 2025 and found no breach of standards. Furthermore, while the media watchdog received a separate accuracy complaint concerning the broadcast, it determined the program did not breach the code in that specific regard.
Potential Implications for Future Public Broadcasting Standards
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Four Corners program investigated by the media regulator?
The March 2025 episode Sacrifice was led by reporter Mark Willacy.
Who filed the initial complaint against the broadcast?
The complaint was lodged by Kim Beazley, who is the War Memorial chairman, a former Labor leader, a board director for defence company Luerssen, and an adviser to Lockheed Martin.
Did the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s internal watchdog find any issues with the program?
No. The broadcaster’s independent Ombudsman received three complaints about the program in 2025 and found that it did not breach internal standards.
How do you think public broadcasters should balance investigative reporting with impartiality guidelines during contentious public redevelopments?
Related reading