The ABC has been in the news a bit lately, not least because there is a push underway to make sure our journalism is fair and balanced.

In fact, there is even a proposed law to that effect before our Federal Parliament.

So what could possibly be wrong with such a simple and admirable idea? Surely, all media should aim to be fair and balanced in the way they report the news?

Well, let me try to tell you exactly what's wrong with it.

I am going to do that without discussing the politics of the idea. I am going to take as my starting point the assumption that everyone who supports the bill is motivated by a common desire to help the ABC do its job properly and deliver the best journalism it can; journalism that is accurate, independent and impartial.

In other words, let's assume we all want the same thing. If that's true, this is not the way to achieve it.

The standards governing ABC journalism

To begin with, let's consider what standards already govern the ABC's journalism. Contrary to popular belief, you won't find them in our charter (section 6 of the ABC Act), which focuses on our broader functions.

You need to look at the duties of the ABC board (section 8 of the Act) to find that we are obliged to gather and present news and information that is, "accurate and impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism".

There are two important parts to that statement, which has been in the ABC Act largely unchanged since the 1980s. The first is the clarity and simplicity of the twin aims of accuracy and impartiality.

Get it right and don't take sides.

The second important part is the clear acknowledgement that these two aims don't arise in a vacuum: they are recognised standards of objective journalism.

Working to a set of principles

The ABC has taken these two aims, along with a commitment to its statutory independence, and created a detailed set of editorial principles and standards to ensure we are doing our job properly.

We expand on and explain those recognised standards by discussing not just basic impartiality and accuracy, but what they mean when it comes to privacy, harm and offence, dealing with children, and advertising or commercial references.

We discuss the implications for privacy, honest dealing with those we interview or record, and our external relationships with other program makers. And yes, in the context of these detailed policies, we discuss how things like "fair and honest dealing" and "balance that follows the weight of evidence" play a role.

When it comes to "fair and honest dealing", we explain it is essential to maintaining trust with audiences and those who participate in our programs, but we also explain that sometimes deception or the breach of an undertaking might be justified in the public interest.

When it comes to "balance", we explain very carefully that "impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time" but that one of the hallmarks of good journalism is balance that "follows the weight of evidence".

This last point is crucial in understanding why journalists don't just switch off their brains and provide equal time for every voice on every issue.

A good journalist weighs up the facts, keeping an open mind but also exercising judgement and analysis to sift through conflicting claims and counter claims to properly reflect the state of a debate and illuminate not just the diversity of arguments but also the facts that underpin them.

Without this sensible and disciplined editorial approach, journalism can descend into a kind of "he said/she said" false balance, where audiences are not given the information they need to understand what is happening in their world.

Avoiding false balance

In short, "fairness" and "balance" are not and never have been recognised standards of objective journalism. They can be helpful indicators of impartiality and accuracy, but only if they are put in the right context and used wisely. In other words, if something is "accurate and impartial" it will always meet the recognised standards of objective journalism. If it is fair and balanced, it might not.

A simple example will suffice. If I write a story that says a doctor wants to vaccinate a child at risk of whooping cough to protect her from harm but the child's mother is refusing because the vaccination will do more harm than good, I have produced a piece of writing that is fair to both sides and entirely balanced.

But it is a long way from being responsible journalism.

That's why the idea of stripping notions of "fairness and balance" from their proper context and enshrining them as key principles makes no sense.

At best, it is redundant. At worst, it will encourage confusion and mischief-making as people demand the ABC adopt false balance at the expense of good journalism.

Being an Editorial Director, I always fear the worst.