There must be bias at the ABC – everybody says so
You could accuse Gerard Henderson of many things – for instance, of being Australia’s most engaging and scintillating public speaker, or of providing the most even-handed and non-partisan analysis of the Howard legacy – but you can’t accuse him of shying away from irony or hypocrisy. In the latest edition of his Media Watch Dog report (proudly not using the BLINK tag since 2007), Henderson (as always) takes some digs at the ABC. His first target is Media Watch and its host Jonathan Holmes – because, he says:
Here the tradition is that a leftist presenter is prosecutor, judge and jury on matters media – and no discussion whatsoever is allowed on the program.
That is, of course, a stark contrast from Gerard’s own preferred approach to media review – a conservative culture warrior publishing a weekly blog post in which he attacks whomever he pleases without offering them any chance to respond, and without allowing comments on his site.
His specific criticism of Media Watch this week is in its (alleged) attack on ABC journalists over a story about alleged corruption in East Timor:
Last Monday The Australian broke the story about Steve Holland, who worked as a casual employee at Radio Australia, had walked away from the ABC following criticism by Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes on 17 August 2009.
Just a few weeks ago, Henderson had this to say about Holmes:
What a performance by ABC 1 Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes at this week’s IQ2 Debate in Sydney. Mr Holmes spoke for the affirmative on the topic “The media can’t be trusted to tell the truth”.
Does Mr Holmes believe that this applies to his fellow comrades at the ABC? It’s not clear. Certainly in the extract of his speech published in the Sydney Morning Herald on Tuesday, the Media Watch presented bagged only newspapers and the commercial electronic media. The Holmes Thesis was as follows: “The media are not in the business of telling us the truth. The media are in the business of telling us stories.”
Certainly ABC 1 identity Michael Brissenden told a few stories about his (hazy) recollections of his (supposedly) off-the-record dinner with Peter Costello in 2005. But this story was not covered by Media Watch at the time or since. And it was not mentioned in the Holmes lament about factual howlers in the media. Oh well, taxpayer funded journalistic comrades will be taxpayer funded journalistic comrades.
I guess Henderson’s question has been answered, but he didn’t stop to note that today. Instead, he attacked the Media Watch MO:
Suffice to say that Jonathan Holmes and Media Watch behaved as they normally do. Mr Holmes criticised someone and there was no right of reply on the program.
Dreadful stuff, it seems. Of course, Media Watch did give the journalists whose work they were scrutinising an opportunity to respond to a list of questions, summarised their response on the program, and published the response on the show’s web site – along with all other relevant documents. And their own site has a comments facility so that anyone can publish a response.
After dealing with Media Watch, Henderson took aim at thin-skinned Phillip Adams and his response to the Peter Costello claims of ABC bias. Henderson aimed to rebut Adams’s use of Counterpoint‘s Michael Duffy and 2001′s ill-fated The Continuing Crisis as examples of conservative views having a voice at the ABC. Frankly, I think Adams’s and Henderson’s arguments here are equally silly. In Adams’s case, claims of bias in content can’t be dispensed with by pointing to the personal views of one or two presenters or programs. But at the same time, Henderson seems to argue that because Late Night Live gets more and better timeslots, and a larger production staff, than the ABC’s conservatively-oriented shows, this is proof of bias. The relatively long-running and successful history of Adams’s show might help to account for that. And while his current critique talks of poor timeslots, absence of resources and an “ABC leftist” producer as the problems for The Continuing Crisis, it seems telling that in 2002 the ABC-phobic Henderson damned the show with the faint praise of being:
no worse than much – and better than some – of what passes for a comment on Radio National.
Now it seems Henderson suggests that in an unbiased ABC, the unproven show would have been given the same treatment as Adams’s program.
While we’re on the topic, it’s worth noting Costello’s op-ed about the ABC, which has had some discussion in other threads but is relevant here. And I’d also recommend today’s Crikey editorial:
Of course, attacking ABC Leftism is a long-established practice by conservative politicians. But to suggest that the ABC’s flagship daily current affairs programs have a “consistent” editorial bias is not about politics, it is an attack on the very heart of the ABC’s editorial professionalism.
If Costello can prove he is right, the journalists and managers responsible for these programs should be sacked and ABC current affairs should be overhauled. If his allegations can’t be substantiated he should be sued for libel.
Claims of ABC bias are dime-a-dozen, not only among conservative politicians but on the conservative commentators’ sites as well. And it seems that the hypocrisy, the lack of actual evidence to accompany the claims, and the seriousness of the implications don’t stop people from making them.
UPDATE: Some input on public broadcasters from James Murdoch (hat-tip to Mark Colvin):
“Dumping free, state-sponsored news on the market makes it incredibly difficult for journalism to flourish on the internet. Yet it is essential for the future of independent journalism that a fair price can be charged for news to people who value it,” he said.
He added: “We seem to have decided to let independence and plurality wither. To let the BBC throttle the news market, and get bigger to compensate.”
His outspoken attack prompted an immediate response from the BBC Trust chairman, Sir Michael Lyons. “British broadcasting is admired around the world”, he said. “Its diversity of broadcasters and their variety of funding methods is a strength and not a weakness. The public tell us that they … trust the BBC and value the wide range of services we provide. The BBC Trust … is here to strengthen the BBC for the benefit of licence fee payers, not to emasculate it on behalf of commercial interests.”
There you have it. Not only is public journalism “state-sponsored news” (carrying an implication of political bias), because it’s free it prevents commercial media from charging a “fair price” for their news and it’s this public media that’s killing good journalism.
why do people spend so much time giving oxygen to the Hendocerous? He’s dull, repetitive and represents no one but himself.
Hendo sure is…..obsessive about the ABC isn’t he? He’s worse than Bolt and the bolt sheep!
“He’s worse than Bolt and the bolt sheep!”
Of course the same anology never applies from progressives criticising conservative media and those who engage with it does it?
Sorry Confessions – you are one of the more concise, articulate and intelligent posters on here, but you presented me with a good example of the opposite spectrum to the case presented above (yes, I know you are not the media!).
I just want media to hold responsible parties (principally the government of the day) to account. I like it when lefty presenters have conservatives on and vice versa – you spot the professionals when they are able to have a civil discourse without flinging insults or getting personal. Pundits who consistently only invite those of their own ilk onto their medium are weak and cowardly.
Every so often, the ABC’s left-wingedess emerges in its naked glory. Four Corners’ story on Monday about juvenile offenders in NSW was a particularly unsubtle example. (Though I am not sure that being more likely to lock kids up is necessarily right-wing, it was a nakedly crusading show which didn’t seem to think personal responsibility was at all relevant.)
Having said that, as a conservative who quite likes watching and listening to ABC current affairs offerings, I am reasonably comfortable with its soft-left pitch and editorial antenna. If it turned into MSNBC (or Fox News) I would agree that there is a problem, but I generally take the mildly contemptuous, but not angry, view that Peter Costello took in his column.
Though, of course, I don’t like taxpayer-funded media in general. This philosophical aversion may motivate some of the more aggressive critics of the ABC.
Up-front, I don’t think the ABC is “biased”. That’s a big word, which means some pretty specific things, and I don’t think it can be accurately applied to the ABC.
I think the ABC has a certain left-liberal lean, and if a presenter is caught (god forbid) advocating a political position (parties aside), it’ll probably be one the center-left finds accommodating. Michael Duffy is the obvious counterexample – but even he’s been dissed by Bolt as having been “captured”. I suspect he never changed his position at all – just the fact that he was working for the ABC was probably sufficient.
And there are particular “opinion” presenters who are obviously in the tank for one side of politics. As much as I think phillip adams is a very clever and resourceful chap, I think he does harm to the ABC’s reputation when he openly attacks the US president with childish slurs.
But I still don’t think that amounts to “the ABC is biased”. For that to be true, the ABC would have to skew its news reporting to misrepresent the facts, to support particular political policies or to prop up or denigrate particular political parties of candidates. And, for the most part, I don’t think it does that. The ABC definitely stuffs up from time to time – no doubt about that. But they’re paragons of precision when compared with the other broadcasters.
Why are so many labor voters (allegedly) working at the ABC? Here’s a thought: it’s a public media institution with long, slow career paths, which gives itself a mission to inform and entertain, and it definitely won’t make anyone rich. How many conservatives would take that offer? They’d go commercial and take the cash. How do ABC employees get rich? They take their show to a commercial channel.
Here’s a more interesting question, though – why is it so gosh darn important for certain quarters to PAINT the ABC as biased? They’re not necessarily taking issue with the facts or presentation of particular stories – most would be hard pressed to actually name a specific instance. That’s not the point, I think. The important thing is that it be known that the ABC is biased, whatever it’s doing. Why? What does that get them?
Meanwhile, SBS gets off scot-free. They’ve broadcast far more dubious material, particularly taking an anti-american position. But … not a mention. It’s the ABC they’re after. I think it’s something about what it represents, and control.
@ baldrick: Not sure what you mean, “opposite spectrum to the case presented.”
But in any case you surely can’t in all serious defend henderson’s totally OTT paranoid fantasises about ABC presenters – recently he indulged in an email war with a 7.30 Report producer as to why O’brien’s age wasn’t readily available on ABC website! That’s the kind of territory occupied by hardcore rightists hell bent on producing something…anything that demonstrates the ABC is a hotbed of communist uprising. It also shows (as does this post) that henderson hasn’t been able to identify genuine cases of ABC bias, and will instead put out nonsense about individuals that quite frankly borders on libellous.
The costello article in the Age recently shows how ridiculous the allegations of bias against the ABC are: Costello pointed to the alleged political leanings of several well-known presenters as lefties for reasons such as previous working for ALP for eg, but on this blog I was able to identify more (I think, from memory) presenters who would fit costellos definition as conservatives. Does this mean the ABC is biased to the right? Of course not, it just means that their employees are likely as broadly as representative as other workplaces in general with their political views. More importantly it doesn’t prove that these views are allowed to seep into their productions ala fox news or Sky News.
Adam Coleman
“Though, of course, I don’t like taxpayer-funded media in general”
To which I give my standard bolt-blog response. By all means, defund the ABC. Privatise it, break it up and sell it to the other broadcasters.
But the next day, I want to see all public sports ovals and parks sold for housing allotments. I want to see all public beachfront property sold to property developers. I want the AIS shut, and I want no more public money spent on sending australian athletes overseas. I want no more money spent propping up private sports facilities (you’d be astounded). Why should my money be tied up in activities that deliver me no useful outcome?
Chuck in a bunch of other little things – forestry companies can pay for the trees they chop. They can grow them or buy them – no more free trees. I don’t get to take stuff I want. And broadcast bandwidth … you think the ABC’s propped up with public money? That spectrum opportunity cost is the biggest media subsidy of all. Just imagine what we could earn by opening that up to real competition. The ABC operating budget’s small beer compared with that.
Oh – and if I don’t agree with a war of choice? I get a tax rebate on my share of the expenditure, particularly if I can show the argument in favor was full of holes.
So – if you’re in, so am I. I believe I’m way in front.
Adam Coleman, Mathew of Canberra you show your own prejudice in claiming the ABC has any kind of left leaning, slight or more than that.
There have been several enquiries launched by the Howard government against the ABC on its supposed bias, and the most comprehensive one that tracked inflections, positive and negative wordings and intensity of questioning found there was a slight bias, for the Howard government.
Not content with that, Howard put in place an expensive ABC bias watchdog, that still might be in place today. That oversight never found a left bias, even a slight left bias. I base that on the fact that in the few years it was in place under the Howard government Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, ABC’s greatest nemesis, never once used any reports from that oversight in all of her rabid attacks against ABC left wing bias, even though she was repeatedly asked to provide evidence. If there was any evidence, no matter how tenuous, Concetta would have been all over it and denouncing the ABC to the media in a flash.
Your claims of slight ABC left bias reminds me of the time, not long after the Howard government attacks on the ABC began, Kerry O’Brien in a segment with John Howard gave probably the softest interview he had ever given. He more or less let Howard obfuscate, prevaricate and run the session. Yet the very next day in a Letters to the Editor a woman complained that Kerry O’Brien wasn’t reverential enough to the Prime Minister of our country and Kerry should be sacked immediately.
To the right anything left of them, even if they are right of centre, is slightly left leaning, and to many anything left of Howard is socialist or even communist, no matter how far right they actually are.
Oh and let’s not forget Howard’s ABC board appointments, some who were openly scathing of the ABC and very right wing biased.
“Adam Coleman, Mathew of Canberra you show your own prejudice in claiming the ABC has any kind of left leaning, slight or more than that.”
I didn’t say the ABC was biased – I tried to claim otherwise. But you’re right – the political point of view of any given piece can be a matter of opinion. Phillip adams? I don’t think many people would disagree that he’s an outright lefty – but I don’t think it matters (a lot) because he’s presenting an opinion/interview show, not the news. To me, bias is a measure of the ABC’s output – and I don’t think it’s (overall) biased to one side of politics or the other (much). Unfortunately, it DOES let its producers’ assumptions show in its program development – see adam coleman’s example. Based on MY watching and MY opinion, those assumptions tend (IMHO) to display a soft left worldview – and to anyone who’s ever understood the other side, it can occasionally make one roll one’s eyes. But that’s true of all media, and at least the ABC can claim to be honest about it. I agree that the witch hunts were ridiculous, and ultimately more embarrassing to the critics than the ABC.
But I think it would be healthy if the ABC did let some honest conservatives borrow the controls from time to time – I think it really would make its output more interesting. But no ideologues, please.
baldrick – agreed that getting different perspectives in can be valuable, although I think the value of those debates depends on the quality of the people, not just their political orientation. I think the ABC falls into a trap of addressing these slurs about its bias by bringing in conservatives who bring down the tone of the debate. Insiders is the clearest example – intelligent and informed discussion is bound to be derailed when you bring in someone like Piers Akerman, who (apart from often being vague or even wrong on the facts of an issue) will seek to replace genuine debate on an issue with axe-grinding on his political talking points (Rudd is bad, the Heiner affair deserves attention, etc.). A decent debate needs a mix of intelligent and articulate people from a mix of perspectives, not contaminated by hackery.
I think Matthew of Canberra’s question is an excellent one – “why is it so gosh darn important for certain quarters to PAINT the ABC as biased?” Is it a way of undermining the credibility of the competition (for those working in the commercial media, such as Henderson, Bolt, etc.) or the credibility of the messenger who might subject one’s argument to scrutiny (in the case of conservative politicians)? Is it connected to a conservative ideal of eliminating public media (the kind of view put by Adam Coleman)? Or is there something more to it?
UPDATE: Some input on public broadcasters from James Murdoch (hat-tip to Mark Colvin):
There you have it. Not only is public journalism “state-sponsored news” (carrying an implication of political bias), because it’s free it prevents commercial media from charging a “fair price” for their news and it’s this public media that’s killing good journalism.
But isn’t that the problem – who and where are these people? Surely the ABC isn’t stooping to utilising bolt, ackerman etc because they feel sorry for them? Surely it’s because there are no sensible, honest conservatives out there in media land? I can’t think of one press gallery *conservative* who doesn’t fit the bill of agenda-driven hack. Only Malcolm Colless, but even he pushes an anti-ALP agenda, often to ridiculous lengths as per his recent article about the CPRS.
And that’s the other thing with the show: it’s meant to be political *insiders*, in other words those who follow and report and anaylse the politics of government and parliamentary business. Bolt isn’t an insider any more than Akerman or Blair are, although at least tim went to the budget lock-up. I used to think henderson was someone who was at least measured and rational, but of late his writing has taken on a decidedly strange obsessiveness with Left vs Right and the ABC.
Toby: of course Murdoch would love it if the BBC was sold off wouldn’t he?
Dear Tobias, (Toby?)
I am in total agreement with you on many, many points. This includes my disgust at those yearn for a conservative aka right-wing control of the ABC.
The only problem I have is your quote “Intellectual dishonesty is pure poison”. You seem to be-in the case of Andrew Bolt, Piers Ackerman, Janet Albrechtsen et al-assuming they are intellectual to begin with.
Surely you cannot be serious?
“Not only is public journalism “state-sponsored news” (carrying an implication of political bias), because it’s free it prevents commercial media from charging a “fair price” for their news and it’s this public media that’s killing good journalism.”
I think he’s right, Toby (although the bit about ‘good journalism’ … hmm). But I think he’s confusing issues (possibly deliberately) and making an obvious business conflict sound like principle. I think there has to come a day when we start paying for the news we get online (hint to publishers: it better be worth paying for). Currently, free online journalism is cross-subsidised by print media (unless it’s the guv), and that’s apparently not sustainable. So I do think individuals are eventually going to start subscribing to news services or there won’t be salaries to pay the reporters. BUT …
(1) A lot of the content on free sites is just aggregated anyway. A fraction of what I read from the ABC web site is actually investigated by the ABC (for example). So there’s going to be a complicated flow of money from me to my news provider to AP, AFP, xinhua etc. It’ll all the be same news, globally – I’ll just pay someone to give it to me with some flash layout. What I’m curious to see is whether the reporting and investigation ever becomes commercially separate from delivery. In an online world, the connection between the reporter and the “printer” just isn’t as important. So what does that mean for small players? Phew, that was rambling.
(2) While it’s obvious that NEWS is currently very keen on seeing a shift in the way news is delivered online, he also takes a swing at the BBC as a broadcaster and content creator. It’s possible that people might miss what he’s getting at as a result (i.e. ‘stop giving away what I want to charge for’). In any case I think he’s up against it, at least for the time being.
There are some laughable anti-public-broadcasting arguments here, aren’t there?
Tobias’ example of James Murdoch sums it all up: it is precisely the nature of the BBC to be independent because they do not have to answer to the likes of Murdochs of this world, whose egos and political sentiments poison the very “freedoms” they claim to cherish. This is what irked John Howard and Co. about the ABC: despite being their nominal paymasters, they had no editorial control over their output, so they could not depend on a biased pro-Government spiel.
To hear Baldrick et al complaining of ABC bias, when in fact their very existence is a testament to independence, makes me cringe. Your sentiments are plain: we’re not biased, but we do not want any opinion other than our own promulgated on the national broadcaster. Some dichotomy there, surely?
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO RUPERT THE PIRATE
I watched on the TV news yesterday, yet another attempt buy one of the MURDOCH PIRATES (James Murdoch) to undermined an institution that is hindering the progress of MURDOCH Empire monster that inhabits our wonderful planet.
Namely the British Broadcasting Company, Owned by the Brittish government in turn owned by the British people.
The PIRATE JAMES MURDOCH said that the news & entertainment realm is constricted by the influence of the British government.
But put it this way, If there was no BBC or other government sponsored news & entertainment the world would have to put up with repeats of the Beverly hill billies and the style of news that would favour the Murdoch’s,OH I forgot and heaps and heaps and heaps and heaps of advertisement.
for example I wouldn’t be able to write my views on this matter, as it is against the interests of the MURDOCH EMPIRE!
In Australia and we have a health and quite ingenious government sponsored TV & Radio network. two in fact the ABC & SBS.
Both these TV stations carry there own independent news broadcasts. Both stations have a very good homegrown budget for local content IE action & Drama series, documentaries and music media.
These 2 stations can and do say what they want without problems from the government.
On the news that I watched the PIRATE JAMES MURDOCH blurted his motive is profit. Money and nothing else….
With all this said, who ever reads this post will agree that the last 12 months on this earth, in any part of the earth the small person has suffered because of the financial crash of the companies (all of them). What about the price of food, as a posed to 2 years ago?
I put it to you that who ever reads this post i am not writing this in a socialist way, I watched as all the government’s around the world had to bale out these companies. There should be a greater emphasis on controlling the likes of a MURDOCH style Empires. To think that a small family can wheel so much power in the world is mind boggling. How did we as a world people let this happen?
To add insult to injury, The MURDOCH PIRATES are purposing a fare for the peoples of the world to read on line content (news) that has been freely broad casted from each country’s government base broadcaster’s since the 1950′s.
The internet is the last place you want these MURDOCH PIRATES to clam for there own and to make huge profits.
A good example of how these MURDOCH PIRATES work is in 2003-4 the foxtel mob covered the BUSH & KERRY presidential campains and clearly favour a BUSH out come and used there broadcasting powers to undermine MR Kerry’s postion. Same here in australia The Captian of the PIRATE ship (Rupert Murdoch) made certian remarks about the elections in Australia. People listerned, If it wasn’t for the power of this media empire, The peoples would be able to much there own judgements. OH and his not even autralian nor is he british, no his american because they americans got on to him about being a foriner so for the sake of PROFIT he gave up his australian citzenship. We all know where Rupert’s loyalities lay.
his MR BURNS!.
I say to the MURDOCH regime. If you ran all the media content around the world, would it be controlled not much different than what remarks James Murdoch made about the BBC etc?. That is why I have posted this letter.
Your Flogging a dead horse MURDOCH Pirates and your not going to stop our government sponsored media….. rack off!
MW@16 – read what I said again. I want a range of opinions and viewpoints presented so that I get my 8c a day’s worth. I don’t care if they present Phillip Adams (who I particularly don’t care for mainly due to his often childish bias) as long as there is someone like Chris Uhlman (think thats the spelling) who seems to be a brilliant journalist willing to take on both sides of the spectrum. Otherwise, do what they do in the U.K. and make people buy TV licences if they want to fund the BBC. Don’t want public broadcasting?? Don’t pay for it.
Their very existence is not a testament to independence – its very easy for an organisation to become ideological if it wants to. As it is totally taxpayer funded (does it make a profit from the sales of goods in ABC shops??) it has an extra obligation to be consistently politically neutral. If a private company wants to be extreme right or left wing, it can do what it wants – if people don’t like it they will not buy its products. That’s their choice. Not so with taxpayers money.
And what makes you think that Murdoch has editorial control over his papers?? Just because he can means that he must be doing it? How many papers does he own? Does he review each of them before release?? Even if he does, and I seriously doubt it, that’s his perogotive. You go and start a media company – you can have any news and opinion you want.
A professional journalist will keep any government of any persuassion to account. As soon as a journalist holds back because of their ideological beliefs, they fail to be a journalist and become an opinion hack. They should then be promptly moved to the opinion pages.
As a final point, proving bias is very very, hard. Also you tend to see bias in people of the opposite side of the political spectrum a lot more easily than bias from people you tend to agree with.
James Murdoch’s reported comments smack of desperation. I don’t remember seeing any such comment about public TV broadcasters up against commercial TV. Seems to indicate how bad things look for conventional newspapers on-line with the crash in advertising rates vs print media. Also ties in with Rubert’s attempt to line up a stack of papers in the US to lock-step start charging for access on-line – the plan depends on sidelining competitive still-free on-line offerings.
I think another aspect is that the ‘Net means that far more news services are available to the average punter. In a number of Australian cities your print news choice is Murdoch, Murdoch or Murdoch and you have a largely captive audience. On-line you can pick up news from anywhere in the world.
baldrick – the UK license was (at least 30 years ago when I was there) for *any* TV access, not just people who wanted to watch the BBC. It was a farce – they used to have detector vans going around trying to find TVs on in unlicenced households. There was no way of working out whether they were watching the Beeb or ITV.
Here the Whitlam government very sensibly ditched the licence system – as I recall the cost of collecting the revenue was a very high proportion of the revenue received.
Malcolm, if you have satelite TV you don’t have to pay. Our neighbours over there didn’t have to pay because they had it – and also very kindly gave us a feed for free. They still have detector vans though!
“There was no way of working out whether they were watching the Beeb or ITV.”
Doesn’t matter, the tuner is capable of picking up the BBC thus the license is required.
I think the license system is great, it ensures funding, the BBC aren’t dependent on the govt and can therefore report without fear (notwithstanding the ‘sexed up’ document fiasco), this is a good thing IMO. The ABC on the other hand…..
……Invite Bolt and Akerman on to their shows to negate any perceived bias.
{Slight edit — Scott}
An update to the James Packer speech shows Packer and the Beeb’s Robert Peston going hammer and tongs at each other later on.
I can see part of Packer’s angle, that a free-funded competitor in the market place makes commercial journalism harder to deliver…but when I compare the quality of the BBC’s output with the undiluted gobshite that News Ltd. tell us is “good journalism”, then I can only conclude that Packer’s argument is lost. If government funding ( or licence-payer funding as in the UK) produces such palpable differences in quality, then why shouldn’t we insure ourselves against the moron-factor by preserving a national government-funded broadcaster?
Stands to reason: if the market becomes dominated by News Ltd, we’re going to be spoon-fed pap and garbage and then asked to pay more for it.
No thanks.
One Trackback