What’s wrong with the ABC? When I start to think about this question I quickly become overwhelmed. So I’ve tried to pinpoint nine major ways the ABC has gone bad. Many of these points are closely related to each other.
The watermark, now here for 10 years, has been decried by ABC viewers, but to no effect. Some ABC programs even have two. Watermarks are irritating on any size screen, and huge and distracting on large-screen televisions. They are basically there for advertising purposes. The ABC claims its watermarks are essential for station identification; this is misleading, as digital technology makes it easy to determine which channel you’re watching.
Pop-up graphics advertising the next show, even during a particularly emotional climax to a drama, are another tactic that is ubiquitous and highly irritating. These are examples of the adoption by commercial networks, and now the ABC, of marketing tactics that blatantly disregard the comfort and preferences of their viewers.
2. Limited complaints process.
The ABC’s once-robust complaints process has been reduced to one that is largely tokenistic. Currently, if you believe that an item contravenes any of the ABC’s editorial policies, you can post a written complaint to Audience and Consumer Affairs. If your complaint is not upheld, you can take it further by referring it to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
Most of the time a complaint to Audience and Consumer Affairs won’t be upheld or resolved. For example, from 1 July to 30 September 2011, 1,040 complaints were investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs. Of these, 94 per cent were ultimately dismissed; only 6 per cent were either upheld or resolved, suggesting that the chances of one’s complaint making a difference are minimal.
3. Misuse and misunderstanding of the term impartiality.
The ABC’s current editorial policies hold some potential for improvements to journalistic standards – unfortunately the mindset remains unchanged.
The ABC’s current editorial policies hold some potential for improvements to journalistic standards – unfortunately the mindset remains unchanged.
In the section on accuracy in the current editorial guidelines, the first principle states that:
The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. Credibility depends heavily on factual accuracy.
A further principle in this section states that ‘Sources with relevant expertise may be relied on more heavily than those without.’
You’d assume that a commitment to accuracy would relate very strongly to the notion of impartiality. Yet impartiality is dealt with in the editorial policies as a separate and seemingly unrelated set of principles and standards.
The principles in the section on impartiality include the following (the italics are mine):
The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism.
...
In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.
The ABC aims to present, over time, content that addresses a broad range of subjects from a diversity of perspectives ...
None of these supposed hallmarks address the nub of my understanding of impartiality; at the same time they contradict the earlier commitment to accuracy.
In its quest for the truth, impartiality will sometimes conflict with so-called balance; yet balance is the first hallmark of impartiality listed in the principles governing the ABC’s version of impartiality. You might be consoled by the phrase ‘follows the weight of evidence’ qualifying the reference to balance; you shouldn’t be. Those who should be most aware of the meaning of impartiality, the denizens of Audience and Consumer Affairs, thoroughly confuse it with balance, with no qualifier at all. The reply to a recent complaint I made about an un-newsworthy item on a Radio National news bulletin included the following:
In other words, it was ‘balanced’. And its standards of journalism were correspondingly appalling.
The text in the above principles ‘opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed’ and ‘aims to present, over time, content that addresses a broad range of subjects from a diversity of perspectives ...’ might be considered consoling. I have no quarrel with diversity per se, as long as diverse perspectives are also the most trustworthy possible from the societal group concerned. Unfortunately, this phrase is used as a convenient ‘out’ when a report fails the impartiality test. All too often it becomes an excuse to include lengthy and repeated diatribes from entrenched corporate interests.
The ABC’s misunderstanding of impartiality in recent years in its news reporting is one of its principle failings. It does not simply fail to be impartial; it rejects impartiality in favour of ‘balance’. The need to present a ‘diversity of perspectives’ (principally from the right, as I’ll show) trumps objectivity, research, hard work, fearlessness – all hallmarks of good journalism.
It should not be surprising that the last standard in the section of impartiality is ‘Do not unduly favour one perspective over another’. This is the final nail in the coffin for true impartiality within the ABC; an extreme view from a self-interested mining company is as legitimate as the complaints of a group representing an entire community.
Take a typical dispute between a union and a CEO as an example of balance trumping true impartiality. Corporate culture has become increasingly ruthless, bullheaded and ideological in recent years. In the Qantas dispute late in 2011, the questions: Who is doing wrong here? Who is really to blame? needed to be asked on the ABC news. They weren’t. Instead we heard continual quotes from both ‘sides’ (as if they had equal power), yet remained in the dark about what was really going on.
I’m not saying every corporate spokesperson is always automatically in the wrong, or that every union is faultless – such an opinion would itself be biased – rather, that the naked exercise of corporate power that characterises our age needs to be examined fearlessly. Despite what the GFC taught us about corporate culture, for the ABC there are never villains, only players. The ABC news desk is charged with speaking the truth, both to power and everyone else, and it continually fails to do so.
4. Failure to inform.
As stated above, in the section on accuracy in the ABC’s current editorial guidelines, the first principle states that:
As stated above, in the section on accuracy in the ABC’s current editorial guidelines, the first principle states that:
The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is accurate according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. Credibility depends heavily on factual accuracy.
The first standard listed in the section on accuracy is:
Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented
in context (my italics).
Two of the ways the ABC regularly flouts the requirement of accuracy is by repeatedly reporting beat-ups as if they were news, and failing to provide proper context.
Both of these lapses have been evident in the recent speculation about Julia Gillard’s grip on the prime ministership. Not only has the ABC been flogging this story mercilessly, but it recently mounted a Murdoch-style campaign to strengthen the speculation, turbo-charging a virtually non-existent story. On 13 Feb 2011 it ran a Four Corners program on the issue, ambushing Gillard by arranging an interview without fully informing her of the theme of the program.
The story was rehearsed on the 7.30 program on 15 Feb 2011, in a sanctimonious segment that was really a story about a story – the implicit message being that the ABC had to continue getting mileage out of the issue because of the’ noise’ surrounding Gillard’s leadership. Yet for all the supposed noise, there was still no spokesperson for the disaffected, and no talk of a spill.
The story was rehearsed on the 7.30 program on 15 Feb 2011, in a sanctimonious segment that was really a story about a story – the implicit message being that the ABC had to continue getting mileage out of the issue because of the’ noise’ surrounding Gillard’s leadership. Yet for all the supposed noise, there was still no spokesperson for the disaffected, and no talk of a spill.
Precious air time that should have been used to inform viewers of local and world events was spent repeatedly flogging what was speculation at best. The chief problem, as Brian Dawes and John Clarke suggested in their regular satirical segment on the 7.30 program on 16 Feb, is that none of the disaffected were willing to speak on the record; nor had there been a leadership challenge (a sole backbencher has since spoken out against Gillard and been roundly condemned).
In the many news items the ALP has run on this ‘story’, not once has it put the event in proper context. Most importantly it needed to explain that if the ALP changed leaders it would have to negotiate a new deal with the independents and the Greens, a factor that would put in doubt the ability of the new Labor leader to form a parliamentary majority. All Labor MPs know this, and it dramatically lessens the likelihood of a leadership change. Yet the ABC has repeatedly failed to inform readers of this basic impediment.
I’m not suggesting the ABC should completely ignore the ‘noise’ surrounding embattled prime ministers; rather that they should give insubstantial stories the limited coverage they deserve, and no more.
(Note: since this blog entry was published, Rudd has resigned as foreign minister and announced his intention to run for the leadership of the ALP. Not only has this move itself been influenced by the media speculation, but the flurry of commentary about what is now an actual story ignores the more important one: that the policy differences between Rudd and Gillard are relatively minor, and that whoever wins, big business will continue to call the shots in this country.)
(Note: since this blog entry was published, Rudd has resigned as foreign minister and announced his intention to run for the leadership of the ALP. Not only has this move itself been influenced by the media speculation, but the flurry of commentary about what is now an actual story ignores the more important one: that the policy differences between Rudd and Gillard are relatively minor, and that whoever wins, big business will continue to call the shots in this country.)
5. Parliamentary PR.
The ABC is funded by taxpayers, not the government. Yet since Coalition Senator Richard Alston began his concerted attacks on the ABC’s independence as far back as 1998, ABC news has gradually come to resemble the public relations arm of parliament.
The ABC is funded by taxpayers, not the government. Yet since Coalition Senator Richard Alston began his concerted attacks on the ABC’s independence as far back as 1998, ABC news has gradually come to resemble the public relations arm of parliament.
One manifestation of this tendency is that government and opposition policy-branding agendas remain unchallenged in news reporting. Two examples from AM and the Breakfast program, both on the same day, 14 Feb 2012: when Health Minister Tanya Plibersek was interviewed about the means testing of the health insurance rebate, she discussed it solely in terms of the difference between supporting ‘working people’ on $50 000 a year, and supporting those on $250,000. She did not refer to the fact that poorer workers who can’t afford the insurance will still be subsidising those who can. Interviewer Fran Kelly failed to challenge this limited focus on working families. There was no attempt to provide objective information to listeners about how regressive or progressive the rebate was, and whether the health system would be better off with government money ploughed solely into the public system.
On the same day on AM, the Prime Minister’s repeated statement that she was focusing on the economy for the benefit of Australia’s working people remained unchallenged -- what about everybody else?
Another example of the PR tendency in the ABC is a new television program, Kitchen Cabinet. Each episode features the ABC’s chief online political writer, Annabel Crabb, sharing home cooked meals with various prominent politicians during which they chat intimately. This format is perfectly suited to Crabb, who, while a highly skilled and witty commentator, treats the parliamentary process as an amusing, values-free sideshow. Her cavalier attitude is highly damaging because it encourages political apathy and focuses on the personalities of politicians rather than their policies.
The ABC’s editorial standards in the area of impartiality include the following:
The ABC takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and equality of opportunity.
ABC reports on the economy typically support a neoliberal agenda in which economic results, and admonitions to keep taxes low and spending under control, are given priority over other public interest considerations. One recent example: on the radio current affairs program PM, an entire segment was dedicated to the recent Rio Tinto profit results, and what they meant. No consideration was given to factors such as executive salaries, climate change and other environmental concerns, the two-track economy and so on. The report rested on the assumption that all shareholders (and anyone else) should care about were profits.
This ideological bent dovetails perfectly with the ABC’s assumptions about the primacy of big business and the economy.
Similarly, on 20 Feb, Fran Kelly interviewed the ABC’s business editor, Sheryl Bagwell, about the messages Kevin Rudd was trying to communicate to big business in his supposed current tilt at the ALP leadership (again, something of a non-story given that Rudd has not made a leadership challenge). Bagwell stated that Rudd was trying to placate ‘the big end of town’ and assure them he would be more business-friendly this time around. Kelly’s questioning centred on what big business wanted from the government, and Bagwell’s responses suggested it wanted business-friendly policies that complied with its wishes.
The segment embodied twin assumptions: that big business needed to be appeased for any politician to achieve leadership of the country, because it had power over government; and that this situation was unproblematic. On 19 Feb on Radio National’s Sunday Breakfast, a supine Jonathan Green had interviewed Graeme Samuel, managing director of an investment bank, former chairman of the ACCC and surely a member of the 1%, and purred at him as Samuel thundered against anyone daring to criticise the big banks, equating all such criticism with ‘populism’.
The number of programs and segments dealing with economic issues is also out of proportion. If the ABC spent one-fifth of the broadcast time it devotes to business and economics on, say, the environment or social welfare, its audience would receive far more information from the ABC on these topics than they currently do.
The segment embodied twin assumptions: that big business needed to be appeased for any politician to achieve leadership of the country, because it had power over government; and that this situation was unproblematic. On 19 Feb on Radio National’s Sunday Breakfast, a supine Jonathan Green had interviewed Graeme Samuel, managing director of an investment bank, former chairman of the ACCC and surely a member of the 1%, and purred at him as Samuel thundered against anyone daring to criticise the big banks, equating all such criticism with ‘populism’.
The number of programs and segments dealing with economic issues is also out of proportion. If the ABC spent one-fifth of the broadcast time it devotes to business and economics on, say, the environment or social welfare, its audience would receive far more information from the ABC on these topics than they currently do.
Rupert Murdoch has been discredited nationally and internationally for his blatant use of his press empire to further his ideological aims and other commercial interests, while the culture of his newspapers has been characterised as one of thuggish denial.
Given that Murdoch now owns 70 per cent of the capital city press in Australia, it’s not surprising that the News Corporation agenda has infiltrated the ABC in a variety of ways. According to Robert Manne, who last year published a quarterly essay on Murdoch’s Australian newspaper, the paper’s national reach means that it ‘frequently sets the agenda of ... the ABC, even the upmarket breakfast program on Radio National.’
Headlines from Murdoch dailies are frequently regurgitated on radio news bulletins, despite the fact that News Corporation newspapers have long been discredited as reliable news sources. This means that if the Australian is pursuing one of its relentless campaigns against the government or the Greens, there’s a fair chance that one of its headlines will feature on ABC radio news bulletins.
Worse, some of its most biased commentators, such as Greg Sheridan, appear regularly on ABC radio and television programs. Until early 2011 the divisive, accuracy-challenged Andrew Bolt was a regular on the Insiders program; now there appears to be an unwritten editorial policy to the effect that every episode of Q&A has to include a Murdoch hack – preferably one with a serious personality disorder, because they make for more ‘entertaining’ television (Joe Hildebrand is a regular, despite his unfortunate habit of making up stories).
Worse, some of its most biased commentators, such as Greg Sheridan, appear regularly on ABC radio and television programs. Until early 2011 the divisive, accuracy-challenged Andrew Bolt was a regular on the Insiders program; now there appears to be an unwritten editorial policy to the effect that every episode of Q&A has to include a Murdoch hack – preferably one with a serious personality disorder, because they make for more ‘entertaining’ television (Joe Hildebrand is a regular, despite his unfortunate habit of making up stories).
Equally problematic, the Murdoch press frequently elevates one or two conservative spokespeople or renegades from minority groups. In doing so it gives these people greater influence than they deserve, rendering them more likely to be included on ABC panels and current affairs programs.
8. Supine journalists.
Over the years since their independence was first threatened by Senator Alston, ABC journalists have behaved like the proverbial frog in the saucepan of water slowly coming to the boil. They have gradually allowed themselves to become mere functionaries.
A fascinating example of a good journalist gone bad is Tony Jones. He presides over Q&A, a program originally intended as a platform for the public to ask questions of an informed panel and thus help influence national discussions. Sadly, its choice of guests has the twin aims of providing entertainment and keeping the politicians on side in the ABC’s parliamentary PR role. Q&A has become a platform for right-wing think-tanks, Murdoch trolls, front bench politicians toeing the party line and staying ‘on message’, former politicians suffering relevance deprivation, professional stirrers, and generally ill-informed celebrities who fawn all over the opinion makers.
This show is a wasted opportunity; it could have nurtured a generation of academics, progressives and genuine intellectuals. That a skilled journalist like Tony Jones presides over this farce is indicative of the extent to which previously talented journalists have rolled over.
This show is a wasted opportunity; it could have nurtured a generation of academics, progressives and genuine intellectuals. That a skilled journalist like Tony Jones presides over this farce is indicative of the extent to which previously talented journalists have rolled over.
A much more subtle influence is at work in the journalistic styles of Julian Morrow and Waleed Aly, both intelligent commentators and presenters on the new Radio National program RN Drive. However, while they compare well to more supine colleagues, their snappy commentary and right-biased devil’s advocacy all too often embody the values-free pragmatics that the ABC now represents. In fact, it could be said that the ABC has a destructive role on any member of the intelligentsia who works for it, taming and quietening, if not exactly silencing, them.
It’s unfortunate that, because of the tiny job market for journalists in Australia, there is so little willingness on the part of former employees to speak out about the ABC’s shortcomings. One short-term exception was Stephen Crittenden, who hit out on the airwaves after the axing of his program The Religion Report in 2008. He accused ABC management of a sustained attack on its specialist units and was stood down for three months before returning to work. However, he declined to comment when he eventually resigned from the ABC in August 2011 (he now works at the upmarket internet start up Global Mail).
9. Right-wing bias.
The ABC’s obsession with balance, as well as some of the factors outlined above, result in it having it a strong right-wing bias when it comes to commentary. While extreme right-wingers appear regularly, progressive commentators are rarely, if ever, true radicals, and their opinions would be considered middle-of-the-road in Scandinavian countries. Thus, a frequent guest on John Faine’s program is Tim Wilson from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a right-wing think-tank that receives funds from private companies to push an ideological agenda that will benefit them financially.
The ABC’s obsession with balance, as well as some of the factors outlined above, result in it having it a strong right-wing bias when it comes to commentary. While extreme right-wingers appear regularly, progressive commentators are rarely, if ever, true radicals, and their opinions would be considered middle-of-the-road in Scandinavian countries. Thus, a frequent guest on John Faine’s program is Tim Wilson from the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a right-wing think-tank that receives funds from private companies to push an ideological agenda that will benefit them financially.
Under normal criteria of newsworthiness Wilson would be given no regular platform. Yet in the alternative universe of the ABC he is a regular commentator on, of all things, the Jon Faine program on 774 local radio. Here, Tim can be heard giving his two cents’ worth on issues in which he has no expertise. Recently he opined that nurses battling the Victorian Government’s attempts to reduce their working conditions should agree to split shifts that would involve them having to go home and return to work again on the same day. Similarly, climate sceptic and market fundamentalist John Roskam, also from the IPA, appears regularly on Faine’s Friday Wrap, where he consistently applauds whatever the Coalition does.
What you can do
I’ve complained to Audience and Consumer Affairs many times about these issues and been ignored. But I still think it’s worth doing and would encourage anyone not happy with the ABC’s journalistic standards to make frequent complaints whenever they feel the urge. I believe that audience feedback subtly affects programmers and also helps prevent the situation getting worse.
Of course it’s also worth complaining to individual programs if you don’t expect a written response. This is more immediate, and might even be more effective.
My big wish is that someone in the know writes a huge expose of the ABC and the ways in which the Howard Government and subsequent Labor governments have all but destroyed its news culture. Any takers?
No comments:
Post a Comment