Not Everyone's Favourite Aunty
Sydney Morning Herald
Friday September 25, 1998
I'M BIASED. If I owned a car, it would have one of those bumper stickers which say, "I listen to the ABC and I vote". I grew up listening to Radio Australia on my father's shortwave radio in places as far-flung as Rangoon and Warsaw.
Now I listen to Triple J, Radio National and ABC Classic FM. I watch ABC TV for its non- parochial news, its documentaries and current affairs, its Australian content. There is nothing stopping me from listening to or watching commercial broadcasting - and I am partial to a bit of Melrose melodrama or Simpsons satire. But I am happy I can choose.
I love the ABC because it offers alternative perspectives, it does not seek ratings at the expense of in-depth analysis, and it relies upon reportage which transcends sloganeering. Any politician whose platform depends on slogans may be justifiably fearful of ABC journos.
Now Senator Alston is accusing the ABC of bias against the Coalition Government. What is this notion of bias or, conversely, of objectivity? Commercial radio's cowboys and their extremist proclivities dominate the airwaves in the guise of apolitical populism.
This means that anyone who takes a middle line is perceived as being radically leftist. Why, given the existence of stringent monitors to which it is answerable, and the number of times it has vindicated itself in the face of accusations of bias, is the ABC under attack again?
The main factor underpinning Alston's criticism of the ABC is, presumably, the fact that it is publicly funded. As everybody's Aunty, it has a responsibility to represent all Australians. I wonder whether the Prime Minister believes that a program such as Awaye!, which focuses specifically on indigenous issues, is biased?
Or does this program, with its presentation of heterogeneous indigenous perspectives, counter some of the biases present in commercial media representations of indigeneity as homogenous, stereotyped and somehow anti-Australian?
On Monday morning I heard John Howard being interviewed by Fran Kelly on Radio National. Kelly asked Howard about the likelihood of a shake-up of ATSIC if the Coalition was re-elected, this in the context of a conversation in which the PM articulated his vision of an Australia which is "open and tolerant."
Howard's response demonstrated a level of defensiveness that seems unjustified, if he is indeed a politician who is willing to tackle the hard issues. Kelly's questioning, which was reasonable, if not gentle on Howard, attempted to place the Coalition's election promises in the context of its policies as a Government. Given the Coalition's track record to date on indigenous issues, the exchange between Howard and Kelly revealed far more about his attitude and irritability towards the ABC than about any inherent ABC bias.
Alston's response to Triple J's "Rock Enrol" initiative demonstrates similar levels of paranoia about the ABC. Claims by You Am I's Tim Rogers that he voted because of concern about specific issues (education cuts, multiculturalism and government accountability) was construed by Alston as anti-Coalition bias: that an "enrol to vote" campaign was in fact an "enrol to vote Labor" campaign. Rock Enrol is a responsible act on the part of the only Australian broadcaster that specifically targets youth.
It encourages young people to participate in the democratic process by reminding them of the rights and responsibilities of democratic citizenship. It suggests that if young people are concerned about particular issues, one thing they can do is vote for the party which they perceive has the most to offer in terms of those issues. An enrol to vote campaign is just that, and the Coalition's response to it demonstrates its anxiety about not being accountable enough.
A public broadcasting corporation should not live in fear of funding cuts or intimidation if it steps out of line vis-a-vis the government of the day.
Government attacks on the ABC by both Labor and the Coalition are not new. What we are seeing now is a concerted campaign to stifle it. Amazingly, the ABC still manages to offer diversity and discussion, which are the basis of objectivity, in a climate where intellectual debate risks being reduced to parodic "political correctness." - GALINA LAURIE
THE bias displayed by the ABC is not due to some Trotskyite conspiracy, but simply because a group of like-minded individuals at our national broadcaster tend to share left-wing ideals. This bias, long a feature of the ABC, has been exacerbated recently by the perception that a Labor government would fund the ABC more generously than the Coalition.
While most discussion of the ABC relies merely on anecdotes and emotion, there is now some empirical data. Last week, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) released the results of a study it had conducted in conjunction with the Fraser Institute of Canada.
This quantitative study - of television news coverage of the second week of the election campaign - found that "even adjusting for its critical approach and its focus, ABC TV News nevertheless remained over twice as critical of the Coalition as of the ALP".
When faced with evidence of such bias, the ABC relies on data which shows that both sides of politics have been given equal time. Last week, for instance, saw the embarrassing spectacle of Kerry O'Brien providing a minute-by-minute defence of the 7.30 Report's coverage of the election.
But it's the quality of the time that counts, not the quantity. For instance, if President Clinton allocated equal time in the Oval office to Alan Greenspan and Monica Lewinsky, one couldn't assume that he has great respect for Lewinsky's economic advice. Nor that his relationship with Greenspan was inappropriate.
The IPA/Fraser Institute study shows that when content is analysed with more than just a stopwatch, the ABC is distinctly biased.
That the ABC is biased should be no surprise. While it has some talented people, its programming quality is increasingly inconsistent.
It attracts those who share a commitment to its ideological purpose or who are unable to cut it at a commercial broadcaster. Often it serves as a training ground for the commercial stations, or as a place for former stars to retire to warm-down intellectually in an ideologically sound environment after making their fortunes elsewhere.
In recruiting, leftist sympathy or ALP affiliation would appear to be a prerequisite for ABC current affairs. Their two key prime-time political commentators, O'Brien and Barrie Cassidy of the 7.30 Report, are both former ALP political staffers.
As the job title suggests, political commentators inevitably make political comment. There is nothing wrong with commentators having a particular viewpoint - the problem is when all the commentators share the same perspective.
Commercial media organisations have addressed this problem head-on, either by hiring from both sides of the political divide (The Bulletin has both Graham Richardson and Andrew Robb) or by inviting a panel of journalists from different perspectives to conduct political interviews, witness Face to Face and Meet the Press.
But the ABC's problem is not limited to the views of its commentators. Those who edit the news are plainly influenced by more than just what is, objectively, newsworthy.
During this year's waterfront dispute, for instance, ABC regional staff were directed not to promote a rally by farmers protesting against the MUA's blockade of ports because the rally had "political connections".
This decision appears hard to fathom when contrasted with Triple J's recent promotion of the "Howard's End" series of gigs around Australia by bands that "think Howard's Government has been giving youth a bad deal with TAFE places and parallel importing".
Plainly if the farmers' rally could not be promoted because it had political connections, then the Howard's End concerts should also have been denied free publicity.
For the ABC to recover its reputation it needs to change its culture. There needs to be an explicit program to recruit people with a range of political views - particularly in key editorial and commentary positions.
Australians need to have confidence that the ABC is doing its job and not pandering to one side of politics. The only way that this can be assured is for an independent complaints unit to be set up to examine the merits of accusations of bias and inaccuracy.
The unit's findings could be acted upon to prevent further problems. The ABC continues to resist such independent scrutiny - which is, itself, of great concern.
While many Australians enjoy and rely upon the ABC for its in-depth analysis of politics and current affairs, we would all enjoy such coverage even more if it were devoid of bias. - JEREMY PHILIPS and JAMES HOOKE
© 1998 Sydney Morning Herald