View article without comments
their ABC
by Jeff Sparrow
Tuesday October 17, 2006 at 12:20 PM
Reposted anonymously from Leftwrites Blog
The new ABC managing director Mark Scott has just released a series of ‘upgraded editorial values’ for the national broadcaster.
'Independent media? As simple as ABC!' I always thought the Friends of the ABC bumper-sticker a little weird. The ABC is a state funded broadcaster. By definition, it's not independent, as is now becoming painfully apparent.
The new ABC managing director Mark Scott has just released a series of 'upgraded editorial values' for the national broadcaster. They include: ■Introduction of an ombudsman-style figure, the director
of editorial policies, who will report directly to the managing
director and will be able to independently audit individual
programs and commission research on editorial issues. ■Setting up a category of programming and online material
called Opinion that will specifically labelled as such. ■Ensure that impartiality is demonstrated across ABC
programs. ■Extension of the editorial policies to all sectors,
including talkback presenters such as Jon Faine on morning radio in
Victoria and his Sydney counterpart Virginia Trioli, and to comedy
and satirical programs such as The Chaser and The Glass
House.
To get a sense of what this is about, you need to read the Australian's coverage. Its account describes Mr Scott as seeking 'more balance and diversity of opinion on
the ABC, long accused of perceived left-wing bias.' Note the wonderful passive construction in the last phrase. 'Long accused of perceived left-wing bias'! Accused by whom? Perceived by whom? Well, prominent amongst the people doing the accusing and the perceiving is none other than Imre Salusinszky, one of the (unbiased) journalists reporting the story for the Australian. (You can read his opinion of the ABC, as well as his tale of his own unsuccessful career as an ABC broadcaster, here). Furthermore, the other names appearing in the Oz story also belong to prominent accusers and perceivers, all expressing their satisfaction at recent developments.
Mr Scott chose the conservative think tank run by ABC critic Gerard
Henderson to unveil a tough new editorial policy that subjects all
radio and television programs to the same editorial scrutiny as news
and current affairs. [...]
The guidelines were supported by Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist with
The Australian and ABC board member, who, it is understood, initiated
the change in policy.
"We've drawn from the BBC (in Britain) and the CBC (in Canada). An
awful lot of work has gone into drawing up these guidelines," she said.
Another Howard government appointee to the ABC board, historian Keith Windschuttle, also backed the guidelines. "This document is a model of its kind" he said. "Any publishing or
broadcasting organisation could take it on board. These are traditional
journalistic ethics in the best sense."
Of course, back when Windschuttle actually studied the media, he expressed quite different opinions about bias and the ABC. The following passage appears in the book he published in 1984.
[T]he ABC hierarchy leans distinctly to the right. It has recruited and promoted many people of the same political persuasion. The hierarchy does not, however, see its values reflected in every programme because the nature of radio and television broadcasting means that production staff always have some room to exercise their judgement and opinion, and this can never be controlled completely. [...] The most significant point about the relationship between the ABC and conservative governments in recent years is that it has suffered badly from them. [...] The reason for this has never been clear and it is hard to believe that it lay solely in Fraser government antipathy to ABC programmes. Rather, it fitted the overall anti-public sector philosophy of that government and its desire to promote private services in the areas of education, health and media at the expense of public institutions, not matter how successfully the latter may have performed.
As we all know, the worm has well and truly turned since then. Nonetheless, his recent ideological wiggling doesn't negate the value of his earlier analysis. For instance, on conservative hostility to the public ownership of the ABC, we need look no further back than yesterday when one Rudi Michelson explained to the Oz how 'with its poor performance, entrenched ideological bias and 'Vietcong-style' industrial strife, surely it's time we sold the public broadcaster.' The stuff about 'ideological bias' is, then, largely irrelevant. The Quad Ranters, who take care of cultural matters for the Liberal Party, would seek the destruction of the ABC no matter what tone it adopted on its news broadcasts. Nonetheless, let's address the question directly. Presumably, an unbiased ABC would reflect popular opinion. Prior to the Iraq invasion, a large proportion of Australians (at various times, a majority) opposed the war. Had these new policies been in place, the ABC would, one supposes, have reflected anti-war sentiment in fifty per cent of its coverage, with protesters given equal time alongside the retired generals and superannuated military experts. More recently, polls show that 80% of Australians think the invasion has increased the danger of terrorism, so we can expect that view to be promoted 80% of the time on these new ABC opinion segments. Yep. And I hear Saddam Hussein really did have those WMDS. He was manufacturing them with Elvis and Harold Holt, who fled to Iraq in a Chinese submarine. No, really. It's on the news. Or if it's not, it will be soon.
www.leftwrites.net/2006/10/17/their-abc/#more-385
bloody
by Disgusted
Tuesday October 17, 2006 at 04:30 PM
Hey, steady on there. Fair go, mate. In the interests of "impartiality" representatives of music genres other than solely that of Elvis should also be included in the submarine. And there should be boats too.
Windy Windshuttle
by Daniel Vigilante
Monday October 23, 2006 at 07:41 PM
vigology@hotmail.com
Great work in bringing up the past publications of Windy Windshuttle. That really does detract every sense of credibility he has said on the issue, and how can we take anything he says FOR THE REST OF LIFE seriously. Great objective journalism!
| 
