After pointing this out many times recently in the Newspapers someone has finally stolen a line I frequently used in those comments...
Independence is not Impartiality... Independent does not mean one is Unbiased.
We need the ABC – it’s time it realised that it needs us
Paul Kelly
Editor-at-Large
October 3, 2018
The recent struggles within the ABC are about power and control. This has been the story for the past 40 years. The names and personalities change, each dispute has its special character, but the central narrative is unchanged — how to manage rival stakeholders in Australia’s most important and public media organisation.
Reform of the ABC is the eternal yet elusive quest. The organisation is embedded in our lives, our memories, our sense of country and the world. It is eternally frustrating yet the indispensable companion. It is not just the national broadcaster but a power institution in its own right. It is driven by a strong ethos — the idea of independence as the legitimising cloak for its reporting, scrutiny and critique of the nation.
It is too big, too bureaucratic, too powerful, too impossible to control and, for all these reasons, it is the subject of perennial efforts to influence and control it. Among ABC listeners and viewers, everybody has an opinion — about what’s right, what’s wrong, what they like, what they dislike. And the government and its ministers have very strong opinions.
With the tribulations of the private sector business model — in television and print — the ABC is becoming more important and, in relative terms, more powerful. It is without question the most influential media organisation in the country. But its character as the public broadcaster funded by the taxpayer as authorised by the government constitutes a structure heavy with tensions since the government is a target of ABC coverage, just as it must be a target of any robust media outlet.
The ABC, however, does not function like other media organisations. It has a managing director but no editor-in-chief. While both responsibilities are supposed to be fused in the MD role it is impractical in operational terms that they be conducted by the same executive. In the ABC, editorial power is far more devolved; there is little or no sense of journalists working for an editor-in-chief who defines and enforces editorial policy internally and explains it externally. Perhaps any such role is impossible in the organisation but, if so, that reveals much about the structure and culture of the ABC and the limits on internal accountability.
It many ways the ABC remains a government bureaucracy trying to be a contemporary media organisation in a world where technological change is faster than ever and political positioning is indispensable to the profile of media organisations.
There are four obvious features of the recent complex drama: the ABC has editorial problems in relation to what might politely be called editorial quality, witness the Emma Alberici saga; it has flawed internal mechanisms to address and resolve such defects, with managers lacking the authority over staff of their private sector counterparts; while any government is entitled to complain about the ABC, such complaints constitute a risk, and although Malcolm Turnbull denies seeking any journalist’s dismissal, his complaint seriously backfired for the government; finally, the pivotal role of ABC chair requires wisdom and restraint, but Justin Milne in his instructions to Michelle Guthrie was reckless and unjustified in demanding the dismissal of journalists, made his own position untenable, and seems to have compromised the entire board.
The ABC can function only when the chair and MD work in harmony, but this seems to have been cancelled when Milne decided Guthrie’s leadership defects were such that mediation was impossible and dismissal the only option. This was a big call heavy with unintended consequences.
Guthrie had implemented a series of reforms to remove management layers, reduce the number of support divisions and free up more investment for the regions. But she resisted Milne’s Project Jetstream for a big injection of government funds to create a huge digital database for all ABC content in a post-television world.
When Milne told Guthrie journalists had to be sacked in order to “save the corporation” and, by implication, win the funds for his vision, she saw this as a futile exercise. Guthrie may have had “leadership style” issues, as Milne said, and been inept in dealing with government, but this was worse.
The backdrop was staff agitation, public applause at Guthrie’s dismissal, cries that ABC independence was compromised and demands for Milne’s head. The Morrison government played catch-up trying to contain the damage and appointing an interim chair, Kirstin Ferguson, likely to satisfy no one.
In the end, what sticks is the idea of ABC independence at risk. The message is that the problem is not the ABC, it is the enemies of the ABC. This reveals a deep cultural reflex. It is a smart power play by the staff who, in such crises, mobilise as a political force under the banner of independence, aware they have a loyal constituency in ABC supporters, strong enough to serve as a disincentive for any Coalition government to challenge the organisation. Ultimately this is the critical power equation.
For what cause is independence being proclaimed? What is the editorial culture of the ABC? It is a vital question that is never asked. These days every media organisation has an editorial culture — just think of CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Fox News, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, the Macquarie radio network, SBS, Breitbart, The Australian and Sky News, to list names at random. Which one is politically impartial? None. This leads to the obvious question: in a time when politics defines the market position of a media organisation, how can the ABC be impartial, and how long can it continue the pretence it is?
This is the real dilemma of the public broadcaster under a legislated charter purporting to be free of bias. You cannot square the circle. It doesn’t fit any more. The hoax becomes more and more absurd. Knowing your audience means knowing their demographics and their politics. It’s about being professional.
The ABC, of course, is different to most media organisations in its size, the numbers of journalists and media professionals, its geographical spread and its multiple TV, radio and digital outlets. It cannot be a monolith and it is not a monolith. Yet the sense of a prevailing culture cannot be missed.
Let’s ask some questions: Didn’t the ABC display a strong preference for same-sex marriage? Wasn’t it critical of border protection measures to stop asylum-seeker boats? Doesn’t it favour strong action on climate change and criticise governments for not being sufficiently ambitious? Doesn’t it project support for renewables and faster efforts to phase out fossil fuels? Wasn’t the ABC distinctly unsympathetic to the policy of corporate tax cuts? Wasn’t it hostile towards reform of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act and unsympathetic to free speech arguments? Doesn’t it push for a referendum on an indigenous voice to parliament and criticise government over this? Isn’t it uncritical of social spending programs and critical of cuts to such programs in the cause of fiscal discipline? Isn’t it more focused on inequality than economic growth and more supportive of government intervention over market forces?
Perhaps all of this is fanciful. Each person has a different perception. If true or even half true, it means the ABC is the strongest force for progressive politics in the country. Is that what the passion for independence is about? Might this be the reason every Coalition government gets agitated about the ABC and believes there is a serious issue in terms of fidelity to the charter?
The ABC is a great institution. Australia needs it. Liberal Party talk about its privatisation is juvenile and clueless. But the ABC’s denial and lack of honesty about its own flaws and its editorial culture is unworthy and doesn’t serve the country. An institution that is genuinely strong will confront its strengths and its defects, not cultivate a victimhood while prosecuting a cultural crusade.
