Posters and commenters at LP have often remarked on how the ABC in recent times has been little more than a vector for Opposition and Newscorp media talking points. However, the ABC’s reportage of the latest Newspoll on Federal voting intentions is worse than that.
Samantha Maiden’s reportage and analysis of the Newspoll in today’s Australian succeeds, for the most part, in not overdrawing the picture and in providing a nuanced interpretation of what the poll figures might mean. Her last few paragraphs on what the poll signifies for the politics of climate change are premature in my view. However her key point – that the figures seem to show that Abbott is proving a hit with the core conservative base but is not obviously winning over the people that the Coalition needs to win over to win an election – is in line with what some of us were predicting in the wake of the Liberal leadership change.
Contrast this with the ABC’s reportage. Rudd has “taken a hit”, his “popularity has taken a dive” and the two-party-preferred margin between the parties “is closing”. This type of thing was repeated ad nauseum on ABC New Radio as I listened to it between 5am and 8am this morning, with none of the nuance and circumspection of Samantha Maiden’s pieces.
When an Oz reporter pleasantly surprises us with the professionalism and reserve of her journalism, and the ABC then beats up her story to provide the partisan edge which she has seen fit not to include, things have come to a sorry pass indeed at “our” ABC.
Now imagine if the ABC wasn’t hopelessy biased towards the ALP! Things would be even worse!
They have now pulled that crappy report that they lead with earlier this morning from local ABC Melb though Abbott is now featured rambling on about something different.
James Carleton on RN attempted to pick up the canberra political correspondent on her fuzzy poll interpretation but was quickly put back in his box.
That really is pathetic. I can’t believe a serious news outfit has taken to the chicken gizzard nonsense the Oz is famous for is really dire. Shit, is there nowhere to get real news??
The headline should be “Polls steady. Other news at 11″.
Rarely listen to ABC news anymore, but ths morning’s was a shocker. Rudd can’t even make a major announcement without the ABC feeling compelled to provide an inane comment from whichever opposition spokesperson happens to answer the phone.
This never happened when Dear Leader was in charge.
Might as well sell the ABC for all the use it is!
Yeah, it was pretty disappointing. Let’s face it, though, if you want decent poll analysis, there’s no substitute for this.
The Janet Albrechtsen ABC Board term expires in February. So there is some good news.
pollytics – “The other issue to come out is Rudd’s multi-month slide in satisfaction levels”
ABC – “Support for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has taken a dive … The poll shows the number of voters satisfied with Mr Rudd’s performance is down six points to 52 per cent.”
The Australian = “Kevin Rudd’s personal support has taken a tumble ”
Slide or dive or tumble? Which description coats the poll with enough nuance?
Janet should be proud of her time on the board. “Mission accomplished.”
wbb #7, read the various stories (pollytics, Samantha Maiden, ABC) in their entirety and you’ll see what I mean.
The ABC credibility takes a hit…?
What credibility?
Psst!
Oi mister and ms.
Come here. Listen. Don’t tell no one, its our little secret.
The Greens are up 1% to 12% compared to 8% at the election.
SShh.
Well, it’s part of our inexorable slide into government (in about 2060 or so … )
ABC 2 Breakfast show was just as bad.
Interestingly, the line on ABC News yesterday was that CRU showed that scientists were altering the data to strengthen the case for action on climate change.
This would be a very serious charge if it could be made out, and would deserve an entire story on its own, but of course it’s no more than mindless repetition of a filth merchant legend by some reckless journalist doing the tabloid balance trick.
This points to a broader problem in contemporary journalism. Balance is the process of adding to pertinent context so as to allow a more informed evaluation of claims made about public policy. When practice subtracts from accuracy by dredging up baseless and irrelevant talking points to achieve the appearance of balance, it’s not really balance at all but agnotology.
Nothing in the WG10 claim undermines the basic insights we have into the 20th-21st century climate anomaly or its etiology. Ian Allison from AAD affirmed this again. Yet paired with the journalists reckless remark in invites the casual to doubt observable reality. Such fake balance on “our ABC” is corrosive of good journalism.
The ABC political reporters have long aped whatever rubbish was being peddled by The Australian conservative campaign. This is particularly the case on Insiders, but general coverage on the ABC website and 7:30 Report is noticeable.
Seriously folks, most of the ABC in its current form is worse than useless. Best to sell of the bits that I think are useless and use the money to adequately fund the remaining parts that serve some purpose.
Step 1 – Sell the news and current affairs divisions to the highest bidder. Would we notice the difference? I think not.
Step 2 – Sell off the TV division. Would we notice the difference? No.
Step 3 – Keep most of the radio, particularly regional, fund it well, and train and employ real journalists. I’m sure they can find some.
Step 4 – Dispense with the MD, complete with his absurd notion of balance and hire somebody of whom I approve.
Easy!
BTW great cartoon in the SMH yesterday regarding the uselessness of ABC news.
Fran @14 nails it. I look forward to the ABC broadcasting creationist science to ‘balance’ geology and natural selection.
Here’s the link to the cartoon Adrian referred to. It’s #2 in the gallery.
Journalists are lazy, and ABC journalists are no different. Of course there are lazy people in all professions, but journalists are worse than most. Given a choice between copy and paste one the one hand and, working on a story on the other, they will take copy and paste the great majority of the time. Polticians and corporate PR flacks know this and so know there is nothing easier than gift wrapping a story to a journalist which they can reproduce verbatim. They’ve then done their job for the day and can go the pub.
It’s not just opinion poll reporting that is affected by this laziness. It is everywhere.
Anyone who expects an ABC journalist to dig and get some insight into an opinion poll is dreaming. It is much easier to run with the theme of a dramatic fall in Rudd’s popularity, and it gets management off their back about being seen to be even handed as well. That even handed does not mean equally gullible to whoever is feeding them a line matters not at all to them.
Thanks Paul. I don’t think laziness explains it, as the situation was very different during the Howard years.
Laziness doesnt explain it entirely, the difference between the ABCs hysterical reporting of refugee issues during Howards reign and the sudden lack of interest is enormous.
Bit of a case of the dog that didnt bark.
Printing a pre-made story lets them look balanced without causing any discomfort to Rudd. In the end they will do Rudd a gret disservice if they ignore mistakes he might make. Turning blunders into catastrophies if they arent picked up on quickly.
A very good cartoon over at Public Opinion as well thoughtful commentary, on this very issue, folks.
http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/opinion/2010/01/media-conventio.php#comments
God, Mole they spend there whole time drawing attention to Rudd’s mistakes whether they are or not. Are you sure you are listening to the right stations?
Even “their” whole time….
A lot of political journalism is the equivalent of rainbreak cricket commentary: background noise. There is a chance Abbott could do a rerun of Peacock in 1984 and make up some ground in the campaign but he is as likely (or more likely) to crash like Latham in 2004 and end up with a blowout defeat like recent state Liberals. Is this political bias? There is an incentive for the media to make an election look closer than it is, Murray Goot (I think) did an analysis of media coverage of the 1988 NSW election when the press consistently overstated Labor’s prospects and from memory 1996 was similar.
Lying around in a heat-induced torpor on the weekend I heard a Radio National science (!) program which was about par for the ABC course these days. You don’t need to worry about climate change after all, get the expert opinion here – just fast foward the time counter to the 26.25
Russell@26 said:
Appalling, and misleading to the point of downright wrong even about the Paleontology. No mention of Canfield Oceans, iridium and asteroid strikes in K-T, the extent of the extinctions in each of the five great extinction events, in particular the End Permian. time scales of extinction and recovery cycles etc
One of them even mentioned ocean pooling and stopped at “we could be headed for a new ice age” (too much is wrong with this to discourse here) without addressing the Canfield Ocean question.
… Simply shocking.
Another vile legacy of the Rodent’s characteristically cynical shitwork. For the love of God fuck Albrechtsen and her gurning cronies off. Remember when Richard Alston cracked the shits at the ABC’s reporting of the Iraq War? Alston was a fuckwit, Albrechtsen is a fuckwit, and the sooner their psychotic right-wing ilk get sledgehammered at the next election the better. Pull the nuclear pin Krudd and flush those fuckers from the face of the Earth!
Bogan, you might want to consider more selective use of the f word.
Australian media obsess about polls like it’s sport, and this obsession fills schedules and columns where politics should be.
Paul, it is a question of taste. There is no right or wrong here.
Nicely put, Bogan. To paraphrase HG Nelson “Do you think I’m being a bit harsh”. At which point Roy would always say “I don’t think so, HG”.
I don’t think you’re harsh enough either, Bogan. One day, these ABC dropkicks will be exposed. I expect it from News/Foxtel, but not from the ABC.
Sam you know a lot about journalists. How long have you been one, then?
And now of course Bogan rightists everywhere can selectively quote from your bit at leisure and be mock offended. “Oh my! Why is the left so hateful! Oh my! Why doesn’t he like women in authority?”
Perversely enough it’s promising in a way that Rudd is allowing things to go on like this as they bucket him constantly. You can bet if the shoe was on the other foot the opposition would…well do what they did. Took them 5-6 years but they finally made the ABC in their image.
The ABC again a vector for Opposition talking points.
How’s this for a Liberal-loyal headline and story:
Rudd’s growth call ‘a confession of failure’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/19/2795500.htm
And here’s a beauty from the ABC blog, Unleashed.
Labor has put our security in jeopardy
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2792543.htm
I wouldn’t have thought that it was the role of the ABC to be a cheer squad for the government of the day. But apparently that would put me in the minority of contributors to this post.
Did anybody say anything about ‘cheer squad for the government’?
No, I didn’t think so. It’s more like incessant criticism and poor journalism that’s the problem.
Terry, well you need not worry yourself, because they aren’t. The point being made is that Aunty clearly now believes its role is to help the opposition back into its rightful place as government. If you are happy with that, good for you.
Conspiracy theory 101. “The ABC” does not have a collective view on who should run the country. And unless I’m mistaken, more individual ABC journalists would vote Labor or Greens than Liberals or Nationals. This is just left wing Albrechtsenism.
The ABC is not an independant body representing the people.I work with a group called Architects and Engineers for 911 truth http://ae911truth.org/ and we often protest out side the ABC since they will not air the damning new evidence that demonstrates that explosives brought down the towers but also building 7 which no plane impacted.
If the evidence in wrong,they should at least air and disprove it.They are all running scared.
Up until about 45 minutes ago I’d never been to ABC ‘unleashed’ before. Unleashed eh? More like spewed up. What an undifferentiated mess of comment. Thanks for the link Rx. If I hadn’t seen it then I wouldn’t really have believed it. It appears odd to me that the ABC would simply assign space to comment from a shadow minister but perhaps they need to link it to equal space comment from the minister. In the name of balance? Oh, don’t worry. That way we’d get double the spin and bullshit. Perhaps they could employ a critical journalist with knowledge, expertise and a track record of independent thought to digest the issues and then write on them. Now there’s an idea.
Is the ABC more than just biased toward supporting the liberal party, is their any corruption in the ABC? Or is it purely just Liberal party supporting peoples ensuring the ABC does its bit to try and get the Liberal Party back into power?
Whatever it is the ABC is as disgraceful as the murdoch media, if you can find any difference.
Totally irrelevant who they vote for, Terry. The complaint is about what they constantly do.
So its not just bias, its corruption. Its gone from Conspiracy Theory 101 to Conspiracy Theory 202.
The government of the day, whatever political stripe, has a lot more resources available to manage the news agenda. I’m surprised that people on this site are so hostile to any form of critical scrutiny of the government;’s performance. Last time i checked, I thought that was the role of the “Fourth Estate” in liberal democracies.
I’m also interested to note that LP contributors are opposed to user-created content on the ABC, and think its web pages need to be kept off limits to all but professionally trained journalists (albeit ones whose views they approve of).
Funny approach to political pluralism playing itself out here.
I don’t believe that the ABC has a collective view on who should be the government. But I find it’s new coverage appalling nowadays. The ABC’s journalism standards are among the lowest in the country. Political journalism on the ABC in general seems to think that “balance” involves ringing up an opposition member and getting whatever rent-a-quote waffle floats from their mind, then running with that as the headline to the story. They did this when the Howard government was in too. What makes it more insidious in recent years is they overweening tendency to make the news the news. E.g. typical story is about the criticism in the media about /whatever/ is the story of the day. They tend to parrot the News Ltd line fairly uncritically.
In fact I am rarely surprised about the level of shallow, non-analytical, commentary on the news that passes for the news on the ABC nowadays. Cliches, reheated talking points, dilettantes, vested interests, uninformed opinions and general ignorance abound in ABC news broadcasts nowadays.
Pretty much the whole of political journalism in Australia is a cancer on society, the ABC no exception.
Terry,
The ABC does not have to be a cheer squad for anyone. But they are. If you can’t see the bias in the places that have been pointed out, then you simply do not want to see. Check them off if you like: 1) Radio, particularly Fran, Virginia, Chris. 2) TV – need we go past Insiders? 3) Internet – ABC Unleashed is the X that marks the spot quite adequately. 4) The board itself – the fact that Jan is still there two years on is a testament to Rudd. Why he tolerates her absolute and utter bias is beyond me.
If you ask nicely I will give you Red Kerry as probably Labor leaning. Very few others but they are no doubt somewhere. probably on kalgoorlie local radio or something equally obscure. I don’t think the ALP is that precious that they can’t stand more criticism than the Libs. But the ABC are running in Abbott’s backline at the moment and it is totally unacceptable and best left to whores like Jones, Ackerman and Bolt et al.
Good – sell it. ASAP.
Hey, for once I agree with Razor. Sell most of it anyway.
Well if the ABC is some kind of ideological state apparatus for the Liberal Party, a lot of its staff seem to have gone on to well paying careers with the ALP. Interesting, no?
Razor, you would be interested to know that Mark Latham also wants the ABC to be sold off, mostly because of his dislike of Annabel Crabb 9would link, but it was in AFR).
And as they say over at Poll Bludger, Janet and friends are just on the board to feed the fish.
patrickg, I am not and have never been a journalist. But I once had a job where I was involved in the selected feeding of information to targeted journalists.
There must be some ABC journalists lurking here. What do they say? I worked there briefly a couple of decades back. The place seemed too badly run to allow for any systemic political bias in reporting. More likely this is just journalistic laziness, as someone else observed. They know ‘The Right’ hates them and they know the board these days is stacked with the sort of people who get up in the middle of the night to write angry letters to the editor. So the easiest course of action is to take the News Ltd line on everything and then go one better, just for safety’s sake. Then they’re left alone.
The old cultural left at the ABC has never worked in News anyway. There used to be a few old-fashioned Marxists in current affairs, which was a separate division. But mostly the ABC left was a cultural left that resided in the talks area of Radio National. The news journos were mostly apolitical pisshead careerists as far as I recall. And it would only have got worse since then (although maybe they drink a little less these days).
Anyway, I think they should sell it off. I can’t see what function it plays these days other than providing a source of employment to communication and arts graduates. Better off starting something commercially and pitching it to we inner city cultural lefties.
Mr Denmore, I don’t think there’s been a Marxist in ABC current affairs since Allan Ashbolt, and his hey day was the mid 60s.
It must be said that the ABC is a shadow of it’s former self. Even the cricket commentators suck, apart from Kerry O’Keefe.
Terry at #49
“Well if the ABC is some kind of ideological state apparatus for the Liberal Party, a lot of its staff seem to have gone on to well paying careers with the ALP. Interesting, no?”
Thats a line the right frequently like to state as if it is fact.
Unfortunately for them its only half a fact.
Here is the other half:
“Some critics of the ABC suggest that the fact that a number of high profile ABC journalists and broadcasters have worked as media advisers for the Labor Party proves that the ABC is biased against the coalition parties. In May 2002 influential Liberal Party figure Michael Kroger, in a letter to the Age, suggested that it was not possible for a Liberal sympathiser to hold down an ABC presenter’s position…….[list of ALP/ABC people]
It is also true that despite Michael Kroger’s assertions, a significant number of ABC staff have had Coalition connections. For example:
Gary Hardgrave, a former minister in the Howard government, is a former journalist with the Brisbane bureau of the ABC’s 7.30 Report.
Peter Collins, Leader of the Liberal Party in NSW for several years, was also a former ABC TV journalist.
Peter McArthur, a former current affairs reporter and TV newsreader for the ABC served several years in the Victorian parliament as a Liberal member.
Bruce Webster was a sports broadcaster for the ABC and later the Liberal member for Pittwater in the NSW parliament.
Jim Bonner, after leaving the staff of Malcolm Fraser, held senior editorial positions with ABC radio and television in Canberra and Adelaide. He later resumed his connection with the Liberal Party when he assumed the position of Director of the Liberal Party in South Australia.
Pru Goward, a Canberra based high profile ABC journalist reported on federal politics for a number of years. She recently won Liberal Party pre-selection for a seat in NSW.
Cathy Job, a current affairs presenter for ABC radio in Brisbane became a media adviser to David Kemp after resigning from the ABC.
Vicki Thompson, a senior political reporter for ABC radio in Adelaide became Chief of Staff for John Olsen, Liberal Premier of South Australia.
Ian Cover, a member of the ABC’s Coodabeen Champions crew, served as a Liberal member of the Victorian Parliament between 1996 and 2002. (Note: the Coodabeens focus was on sport rather than politics).
Rob Messenger was ABC radio broadcaster in Bundaberg. He is now the National Party member for Burnett in the Queensland parliament.
Grant Woodhams, National Party member for Greenough in WA worked with ABC radio in Tasmania, South Australia, NSW and Victoria.
Ken Cooke, State Director of the National Party for 13 years, and a close associate of Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, was an ABC journalist before taking up his position with the National Party.
Chris Nicholls, an Adelaide ABC journalist, broke a story revealing that Barbare Wiese, a minister in the Bannon Labor government in South Australia, was involved in a conflict of interest. He was accused of improperly obtaining details of Weise’s financial affairs, but was acquitted. Nicholls, and his story, were defended by the ABC’s News Editor, and the ABC State Manager. Some time later he left the ABC to work for Liberal Senator, Grant Chapman.
Eoin Cameron,the former Liberal member for the federal seat of Stirling, presents the breakfast program on ABC local radio in Perth. He is a popular and respected broadcaster.
Cameron Thompson worked for the ABC in Longreach and Darwin before winning the seat of Blair for the Liberal Party.
The current State Director of the ABC in Queensland, Chris Wordsworth, is a former press officer for one time Liberal Defence Minister John Moore.
In March 2009 Scott Emerson, a former ABC journalist won the Queensland seat of Indooroopilly for the Liberal National Party.”
Gives a different picyure doesn’t it?
From nere:
http://www.friendsoftheabc.org/abc-issues-bias-funding-sponsorship/is-the-abc-biased/why-cant-liberal-party-sympathisers-get-jobs-in
This idea of flogging off the ABC becuase current management/board doesn’t suit the ideological predispositions of LP readers is a crock. It is like Sydney trams – once gone, never return. Time will change the board, the culture may change within (with effort and critique). Sell off an asset like a public broadcaster. Mad.
Mr Denmore has it (I too, have done a bit of work for ABC) – incompetence + govt bureaucracy is all the problems here. The board has little to do with the actual running of the organisation, and one thing the abc news does have is clear editorial oversight and rules. You may disagree with them, they may be ineffective, but they exist and they are – largely – enforced. If anything I think you would find most abc journos would complain about too much intereference, not too little.
The other elephant in the room here is deadlines. Having worked as a freelancer, I believe with great confidence that more than 70% of the error and bias you see is simply the result of no resources and tight deadlines. No one wants to run a press release, believe me. But real journalism takes time – and it’s a resource you are really afforded, and a result that is only sporadically valued.
Spouting off about “all journalists this”, and “all abc news” that, isn’t really helpful, or accurate. Most abc reporting is fine. Their political reporting, and the shady line of news versus editorial is where the ship starts to seriously list. Which is why they should stay the hell away from it.
I don’t know what it is but Annabel Crabb does it for me. Especially when she twirls her hair around her finger. She is one of the few reasons I watch Insiders.
The ABC was an important piece of infrastructure before the rise of commercial media and the internet.
Just as we sold off airlines, banks etc as the role of government was able to be filled by profit making enterprises – the same applies for the media. Time to sell.
To me this has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with standards and quality of journalism. If we are to continue to fund the ABC it should be on the basis of more than a vague hope that the organisation at some stage could reinvigorate itself. We need a discussion of exactly what we expect from a public broadcaster because at the moment it is getting more and more indistinguishable from what it sees as its commercial rivals. So what’s the point of a public funded quasi commercial broadcaster.
And if most ‘ABC reporting is fine’, patrickg presumably has no problem with the standard of News Ltd reporting either.
Just as we sold off airlines, banks etc as the role of government was able to be, very often poorly ,filled by profit making enterprises – the same applies for the media.
I can’t be bothered listening to Fran Kelly any more and in my opinion the ABC (both radio and television) is “dumbing down” at an even faster rate than commercial networks – all going for the lowest common denominator. Listening earlier today on my car radio I caught part of a broadcast on the so-called News Radio station – the one where with everything that is happening in the world, and therefore a myriad of stories from which to choose, you get 15 minutes of the same stories every 30 minutes with the other 15 minutes being filled by the same sports stories read out half an hour before.
The Prime Minister was on talking about the dangers of internet hacking (the Google story etc) but this was followed immediately not by any comment on that story from a member of the opposition (for “balance” or even to agree with the potential hazards) but by a diatribe from Christopher Pyne that the PM has spent over $5M holding cabinet meetings in marginal electorates – the latest being his own – and what a disgraceful waste of public money this was etc. There was no rebuttal comment invited from the government or suggestion that one had been requested, just Chrissie whining about all those wasted $$! To me that suggests bias and makes the ABC, in the political arena at least, a waste of air space..
The SMH Moir cartoon shows how lucky NSW is. In Qld all the ABC can read is funerals and remembrances.
Eoin Cameron may be a popular and respected broadcaster among those who listen to him but he is one of the reasons why I don’t tune into local radio here, hannah’s dad. He’s very opinionated, self satisfied and fond of the sound of his own voice. Nothing like as bombastic as Alan Jones, I suppose, but certainly not my cup of tea. Not that I have detected particular Liberal bias.
Fran Kelly though, Allan, seems so dumb she just can’t hide her bias to the right. She’s away on holidays right now. If she were not to come back I would gladly stay with RN in the mornings again.
Glad my sighs over the ABC are not just the isolated moanings of an aging malcontent. I used to love going to work in Sydney rush hour would you believe? Paul Lyneham and Andrew Olle were there with me as I inched across the Bridge. Absolute magic.
Patricia – yes, Cameron is that bad that he has the highest rating breakfast show in WA.
Contact this bloke and tell him to bo something about it.
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/contact
Why complain about it? We are being exdposed to alternate views and as much as I don’t hold much truck with right wing views I can just turn the TV off.
Besides the right are still complaining about how left wing the ABC is so there must still be some way to go before we can accuse the ABC of being biased.
As much as I agreed the the ABC culture 1995-2005 it has to be said that for most of it’s life the ABC was conservative and this left wing flirtation was a blip.
What, tssk?
Razor,yes, I was already wondering if I’d been unfair there. I listened again this morning before I read your comment. I can see why he is so popular, but again not my cup of tea. Sometimes we just won’t be pleased, will we?
I guess I’m just an old grumpy after all!
“Bias” is hard to prove, Senator Santo Santoro (Qld) was Howard’s Grand Inquisitor looking at ABC bias, and what did he find?
Newsreaders making supercilious gestures when reporting on Coalition members.
Editorialising, however, is quite blatant, as in the examples quoted above.
A few I can quote from memory;
Newsreader after Costello’s last budget, 07: “The Coalition is still behind in the polls, despite the recent generous tax cuts….
Newsreader while Beazley was still leader, 07: “…the recycled leader, Mr.Beazley…”
Reporter ABC news recently: “…the government’s flawed emissions policy…”
It is a consistent editorial policy.
Shorter version joe2…I loved the ABC during a ten year period but I think that Howard might have just changed the ABC back to what is used to be rather than nobbling it.
Yes CMMC, as in radio news this morning where we had the familiar technique of highlighting the opposition’s response to a government initiative, rather the initiative itself. It happens consistently, so it must be some sort of editorial policy. And they call it news!
And the point is tssk, we are not being exposed to alternative views when all we get are recycled press releases, News Ltd talking points, and whatever the opposition wants to complain about. As far as I can see genuine alternative views are only available on the internet.
I like being an aging malcontent.
Re the ABC. I reckon the ABC are terrified of even looking like they might be pro-labor, because they know what a caning they’ll get once the Libs get back in, if the ABC looks even sligfhtly left. Which they will, Eventually.
Mind you, some of them are pretty disgustingly right wing.
Generally in response to the point Terry made further up the thread, it is worth one’s while to make the effort to wake up before 5am over a series of mornings, listen to the news headlines on ABC News Radio, take note of the ones on political news which seem to be repeated, and then tune into the section on the Channel 9 Today show between 5:30am and 6am where they run through the front pages of the morning papers, and note the uncanny resemblance between the political talking point du jour on News Radio and some partisan beat-up on the front page of the Australian. A case in point from earlier in the week was ABC News Radio’s faithful parroting of the OO’s beat-up over the IPCC correction of the Himalayan glacier predictions.
In the instance discussed in my opening post, the ABC went one better (or worse) by channelling a report on Newspoll from the Australian in a way which lent the story a partisan edge which was absent from the original story, and which, as the Australian journo had pointed out, was not supported by the Newspoll figures which were being reported on.
The comments about Fran Kelly are interesting because I knew Fran fairly well in Melbourne in the early 1980s and she didn’t have a right-wing bone in her body. Perhaps she is engaged in a subtle form of sabotage by running a conservative line in a way which is so dumb and crass as to be offputting to anyone who isn’t a convinced right-winger.
I don’t agree Paul. The Liberal outrage at the ABC is confected and Overton in rationale. That’s a given. I very much doubt the working journos place undue weight on it.
I suspect it’s more what happens when banality meets thge usages of journalism. It’s a lot easier to be a right-of-centre journalist than a left-of-centre one because, by definition, the culture and practices within which one works reward being right-of-centre differentially. People challenge you less often and the easiest and most simplistic analysis coimes from the right.
It’s a variant of the extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof rule of thumb. Being left-of-centre seems an extraodinary claim to the political class and the priviliged mileue in which they operate. The concerns of journalism are with the interests of the privilged since they underpin the system, and journalists themselves are by definition closer to the top of the privilige pile than the bottom. And if you can earn a living, hold down a secure job and have a good career path, be patted on the head by the powerful without working too hard, what are you going to do?
Re Fran Kelly, don’t forget she got seriously monstered by Alston over her reporting on the Great Military Adventure in Mesopotamia. She’d uncovered a few inconvenient truths about the way it was being conducted, iirc.
She is annoying over breakfast, though – she often doesn’t give the people she interviews any space.
Thank you for that Fran.
There is also the point that whatever the failings and weaknesses of the ABC it remains a central insitution in Australian democracy. There was a time when 4 Corners played a significant role on issues. It will do so again, for sure. Same with Landline. It is not unreasonable to adopt a critical attitude to reportage and analysis onthe ABC and declare rubbish to be rubbish when we see it. Moreover, the opportunities for critical comment are much greater thanks to the interweb.
FB,
So maybe we hold them to too high a standard? Still, when it comes to finding out what is going on in the world, the bar should be high.
Nevertheless, I would never ever underestimate the vindictiveness of the Liberal party to wards thoughs it can blame for helping to keep them from what they see as their rightful place.
I posted this by mistake in the thread above, here tis again for those that don’t thread hop.
For me the classic example of ABC bias was brekky with Fran Kelly and Michelle Grattan some months ago.
They spent a few minutes criticising Rudd re losing the ETS vote in the Senate, “Not a good look” was the verdict and then Michelle got onto Turnbull’s meeting with the BCA the day before [this was BG, Before Gretch time].
Turnbull went cap in hand asking the BCA to write their ETS [for both the Opposition and the BCA] amendments for him. You write them, we’ll put them in Parliament, you cheer us on outside Parliament was how Michelle described it in essence but without that emphasis nor those words.
My version would be that Malcolm was asking to be the BCA sock puppet in Parliament.
Neither Fran or Michelle saw anything untoward about this cosiness.
No “Not a good look”.
Nothing.
And for the record, I would strenuously oppose privatising the ABC. Whatever reservations we have about the quality of the current affairs journalism, it does deliver services that are extremely valuable and which would not be delivered under a private model of funding.
“And for the record, I would strenuously oppose privatising the ABC. Whatever reservations we have about the quality of the current affairs journalism, it does deliver services that are extremely valuable and which would not be delivered under a private model of funding.”
Absolutely 100% agree.
“I knew Fran fairly well in Melbourne in the early 1980s and she didn’t have a right-wing bone in her body.’
She still doesn’t Paul and she’s a very professional journo to boot. The critique of Fran and her colleagues here is absurdly overblown. Reading through many of the more paranoid offerings above, I’m none the wiser as to what commenters think the ABC should be doing in order to meet their expectations.
Running government pressers without comment?
Eschewing reportage in favour of vilifying/ridiculing every Opposition utterance?
Not reporting anything the opposition says at all because they’re just “opposition talking points?” NB: LP commenters used to become hysterical about “government talking points” before the last election….funny how things change.
Ensure that no-one is allowed to appear on Insiders other than Guy Rundle, Anne Summers, Eva Cox and Bob Ellis and monitor them closely to ensure that there is no ideological slippage in anything they say? I’d include the usually reliable Mungo McC in the lineup but he said something disgracefully complimentary about Noel Pearson on Crikey the other day and will clearly need to be closely monitored.
But ultimately, does anyone really imagine that a single viewer in the vast audience of 8,000 LP readers, pollies and assorted political junkies that tunes into ‘Insiders’ of a Sunday morning has ever been swayed by the ‘arguments’ of Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt? Seriously?
What’s missing from this thread is an acknowledgement of the fundamental truth that it is up to you to draw your own informed conclusions from what you hear, which is not at all the same as ‘I don’t agree with what you say so I will stop you saying it.”
Ludicrously parsing every utterance of the ABC in order to detect “incorrect thinking” used to be the preoccupation of the Right. If nothing else, I guess LP can be thanked for bringing some ‘balance’ to the equation and providing an illuminating and fun-filled thread of exquisite self-parody.
I’m also 100% against privatising the ABC; their news may be boring, repetitive and frequently straight from the pages of the Murdoch press, but without them there’d be no Torchwood, no Dr. Who, no great BBC shows, very little original Australian TV drama that is truly original (they used to be a lot better in this area but Howard gutted them), no great documentaries etc, etc. (Can you think of the last time you saw a doco not on the ABC or SBS that wasn’t of the variety “The Aliens Built The Pyramids”?
And on reflection I still think the Libs are waiting with beseball bats to have another go at Auntie when they get back in.
You miss the point by quite a margin Geoff Honnor.
As far as I am concerned the issue is the quality of journalism, and some examples of the poor standard at the ABC are the rehashing of stories from the Australian and other news outlets, favoured treatment to the opposition in many news stories, general dumbing down and emphasis on trivia, and lack of any serious investigative journalism.
The question remains if the ABC is going to be a pale imitation of its commercial counterparts, what is its purpose? Nobody seems to be able to answer this question.
I agree some of its services are valuable, but they’d be in the minority and mostly in radio. I can’t see any reason not to sell the rest, and fund the remainder properly, apart from a vague hope that things will get better.
Geoff H
As Adrian says, you miss the point (though I don’t agree Adrian has got it either).
There isn’t now and never has been a context in what those of us with an interest in thoughtful analytic journalism can predominate. Information about the world is not much different from any other kind of commodity. If you want handcrafted fine detailed custom stuff, it will take longer and cost more. If you are happy with mass manufactured off-the-rack stores everywhere cloned stuff, then that will be cheaper and quicker. That’s always been the case, and probably always will be.
The vast majority of journalists that we see are people who in their dotage or close enough to start thinking about it. They fancy they have done their hard yards, established their cred, taken their risks and now they are cashing that in resting on their laurels. They’ve got contacts and networks they dare not burn. They know they can be replaced. Your fresh-out-of-uni journalists whose eyes are still shiny and who fancy their mission as fearless truth telling and have done their hard yards reporting “human interest” stories and writing advertorials for local rags yet still fancy they are truth seekers don’t generally get near a big audience microphone.
That’s why, despite the gnashing of teeth and the impulse to vent at the ABC and declare we don’t care about it out of irritation, selling it off would not improve journalistic standards. All that would do would be to spread the banality more widely. Anomie doesn’t come cheap.
It’s hard to imagine how one can reconcile quality journalism with capitalism, since capitalism ipso facto reduces information to a tradeable commodity. In a world where about 83% of the wealth is held by about 17% of the people (and recursively this works too) what we see in public discourse ought not to suprise anyone. If societies were far more egalitarian and inclusive, one suspects that the journalism would be too, but that is clearly a long way from where we are.
Geoff, the issue is more about the quality of the journalism at the ABC these days. People here, as far as I discern the trend in this thread, aren’t arguing about conservative opinion being represented at the ABC. It’s the lazy way they address “balance” issues – by just blithely running half-baked Opposition and News Ltd talking points without any critical filter or by having the right represented by its noisiest and most radical representatives.
Possum wrote a good piece about this recently, noting how Andrew Bolt is routinely drafted by the ABC to represent alternative thinking on climate change. It’s just lazy guest booking. They know these attention seekers will always agree to appear and they can’t be bothered digging out more considered and less histrionic voices from either the left or the right.
You ask what the ABC should be doing. My answer is it needs to rediscover what it is there for – to understake fearless and rigorous journalism that provides citizens with good information upon which to make decisions – not to ape commercial broadcasters in shallow explorations of the noise of the day.
Well said Mr denmore.
And Fran Barlow, the point is that selling the parts of the ABC that resemble their commercial counterparts, and adequately funding the remainder would certainly improve journalistic standards. Or are you happy with the status quo? An increasingly mediocre and worthless ABC kept in public ownership for nothing other than a vague hope that it will improve, and a dislike of selling public assets.
Well I dislike selling public assets too, but in its current form the ABC is certainly public, but hardly an asset.
Yes, ABC standards have sunk. Too PC. Every story is presented as he-said, she-said. Reporters don’t call out lies by interviewees. Apparently facts are merely opinions nowadays.
I wish, at least, the ABC onair staff could speak properly. It’s so annoying to hear Chewsday, Chewna, Chewbe etc.
Adrian, maybe the plan was to set Aunty up for a sale all along. If you look at the move to the annoying commercial style breaks, for instance, it would make a sale much more easy.
Geoff Honnor, I don’t see myself as joining a lefty mob railing generally against the ABC, strong ALP supporter though I am. Our critical comments, certainly mine, are mainly directed at morning radio which was once a stimulating start to the day with stars like Lyneham and Olle. I thoroughly enjoy the 7.30 Report with Kerry O’Brien and I think Tony Jones does as mighty a job as Maxine McKew ever did on Lateline.
My disillusionment with Kelly has come about over the years from the time she first appeared on AM with that high, yet boyish intonation of hers as a young reporter. There was a naive straightforwardnes, an eagerness almost, which I liked. I wondered how she’d got the job and if she would survive, particularly since hers was and still is not a good radio voice. Yet survive she did and well. I guess she conformed and toed the line, not by compromising strongly held principles but rather by growing up within a culture and accepting its rules.
She may have grown up in years but she demonstrates little growth in character and understanding. Her one to one interviews, particularly the regular one with Michelle Grattan, are usually prefaced at length by her when she sets her agenda leaving no time for the interviewees’ own story if they begin by disagreeing with her perspective. Her subsequent questions are similarly loaded. This is not challenging journalism, this is presumptive journalism, not probing or interactive.
You’re right on one thing. I certainly don’t want Eva Cox or Bob Ellis appearing as regularly on Insiders for the left as Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman do for the right. So why are one or other of the latter invariably there trotting out the same old shibboleths? They destroy any claim the Insiders might have to balance. And they’re boring!
I’ve considered that possibility also. By causing it to become so biased towards the right, disgusted leftists, who would normally be the most strongly opposed to privatisation, are starting to plead for the abominable thing to be sold off or put down.
It’s a pleasing conspiracy theory, Rx, but I doubt if Howard or any of his droogs are that bright.
Patricia: quite right too about not wanting Cox and Ellis to simply replace the drones of the right. I’m beyond old cold war warriors well and truly. A talent for critical reportage wouldn’t go astray at the ABC. I don’t expect if from the commercials who are merely the mouthpieces of capital. As for analysis, I can do that myself just … give me the facts.
Razor @64
Ratings are such a great indicator of quality in breakfast radio – not
Yes analysis is mightily overated, particularly as it has become a synonym for ‘my opinion which as I’m an insider has more value than yours, not that I’m going to explain why’.
Bob Ellis has at least the entertainment factor in his favour, something completely lacking from the equivalent right wing commentators.
It’s not completely lacking in those people, it’s just unintentional when it manifests itself.
Anthony asked:
The perennial question fopr anyone who fancies analysis is of course ‘which facts?’, folowed shortly after by ‘how can we tell facts from non-facts’ anyway?
No worthwhile journo just reaches into a barrel of facts, selecting 2 minutes worth and offers them up as the story. To attempt to do so virtually ensures that one’s facts will be derivations of press clippings from the elite.
Analysis precedes selection. What is salient? How do we weigh competing empirical claims? What potential conflicts of interest exist and what light do the shed on particular claims? Is the most plausible data subject to selection error, and to what extent and in what ways? How does this compare/contrast with past claims?
These and many other questions are basic to robust and rigorous reportage. This is the value that quality journalists add to what is out there floating about in cyber space.
Just ‘the facts’? Nope. That’s simple empiricism.
True Paul@95.
FB: unless power relations in all their multifarious dimensions have changed markedly while I wasn’t looking then the facts are often enough for me to be able to discern what is going on. I would have thought that you’d understand the significance of always asking ‘in whose interests is it?’.
Most of the time, analysis in good journalism comes simply from someone asking the right question at the right time – usually the one which everyone wants answered but which no-one has the gumption to actually pose. These are often uncomfortable questions, at least for the person put on the spot.
The problem is the ever expanding spin-doctoring industry – populated mainly by former and now much better paid journalists – is three steps ahead of the drones in the mainstream media and had workshopped answers ready for every seemingly difficult question.
The spinners also understand the pressures young journalists are under from their masters to supply “analysis” (their editors arguing that “facts” are now commoditised in a publish-anytime-anywhere wired world). So the spinners provide fully backgrounded pre-fab analysis that has the double benefit for the journo of instantly filling a hole under extreme time pressure and making them look smart and worldly and cynical for their tender years.
The media these days is so easy to manipulate, mainly because it no longer commands the resources in time and personnel and money that it once had. It also has (in the commercial media) impatient shareholder proprietors interested mainly in advertising yield and circulation and less in the quality of the content and in the ABC a political class forever looking over its shoulder ready to pounce on perceived examples of “bias”.
Longer term and because of the above, journalism is no longer attracting the best and the brightest. It attracts careerists rather than idealists, people wanting to be television or radio “personalities”. These are people never in a hurry to rock the boat. Put this together with the dwindling lack of employment opportunities and can you can start to see why the ABC is so timid and easily bullied.
I’m not sure what the answer to this. Being a believer in markets, however flawed, I believe it will have to come from the users of media demanding something better and from investors with a longer-term horizon than what we have now. It will also require some fearless managers and executives in the news business able to communicate and negotiate effectively with both their capitalist and political overlords and their craft-based comrades.
The ABC has a serious problem with the quality of reportage coming out of the Radio National News Rooms, particularly the hourly radio broadcasts during the day.
These broadcasts should be of the highest standard, brief, intelligent, and objective, because they are part of setting the daily news agenda for the nation, but over the past few years they have become degradingly stupid.
If you listen long enough and carefully enough you will hear the same text that you read in The Australian newspaper that morning. The same political slant, the same selective judgement, and even the same choice of words.
Or, if not the same text, you will hear an Opposition spokesperson commenting on a government announcement or initiative, that has not itself been reported. Consistently, every day. This did not occur during the Howard years, or before that. Ask anyone who is old enough to know.
And then you will hear a load of old cobblers about the latest nasdex and groin injuries. Reams of this junk as time filler.
That’s our national news for the day.
As adrian@71 commented, there is a predictable formula in these hourly news broadcasts: “the familiar technique of highlighting the opposition’s response to a government initiative, rather the initiative itself…”.
This has to stop. This is not reporting the news, and it is not “balanced”.
Mr Denmore said:
This is pious and woolly. “Markets” are pretty good at delivering some products and services but it is wrong to make a fetish out of it. Rather than being “a believer in markets” one should examine the nature of the goods and services and determine which means are best suited to delviering the utilities in question. In particular, where markets cannot resolve collective action problems, markets will necessarily be “flawed” (to use your all too delicate term).
It’s worth noting that the “users of media” does not really refer to the same group as the consumers of media. The users of media are largely advertisers and groups with a significant stake in production or governance. They of course will continue to assert their perceived interests but this will have little to do with robust journalistic standards. What they will want is for media to deliver properly qualified audiences to them in organisationally feasible volumes and only to that extent will the quality of journalism be relevant.
There is no mechanism within current or foreseeable arrangements to approach robust and analytic journalistic practice and merely wishing out loud can’t change that.
To will the end is to will the means. Propose means, Mr Denmore.
“It’s a pleasing conspiracy theory, Rx, but I doubt if Howard or any of his droogs are that bright.”
What they lacked in the smarts they made up for in maliciousness, D.I.(N.R)@91
This call for a sell off of the ABC, that I think first began around here at the suggestion of Ken Lovell*, would give them great joy if it continues to grow amongst the left. In a way, it does not matter whether they planted the seed or not.
Before reaching for the conspiracy theory hard hat it is good to remember Mark Scott was never likely to have understood the proper role of the organisation, with his background in commercial media and as a liberal staffer. At the time of his appointment, he may well had fattening for sale in mind. No doubt his mates would have been whispering in his ear about the mighty wonders of privitising anything that moves.
Now he looks to have done such a good job that many, from both sides, think the cow should go.
*Ken actually called for the sale of the television arm if I remember correctly.
I’ve had a couple of robust discussions with Ken about privatising bits of the ABC myself, Rx.
His point, which I must confess has some merit, is that the taxpayer shouldn’t have to fund my taste for quality television without advertisements.
Apologies, joe2 – that last comment was intended for you.
A partial sale of the ABC makes sense if you then re-invest the proceeds in properly funding the remainder that presumably serves some purpose. I can see no sense in continuing to fund a failing organisation with no alternative plan to improve it other than hope and prayer.
joe2, I remember arguing with Ken about this very topic (on Surfdom i think) and disagreeing with him strongly. That was only a few years ago, but it’s deteriorated badly since then, so happy to admit I was wrong.
I agree. I’ve loved the ABC in the past but other people shouldn’t have to subsidise that.
Defeatists!
Fran Barlow, I’ve not a naive believer in market-based solutions, as you seem to imply. I’m saying that new distribution technologies are rendering as obsolete the old 20th-century mass market-oriented media, whether it is the ABC or commercial radio and television. Journalists, for the most part, haven’t kept up with the technology. The business model funding good journalism is broken and the trade is now dying via a thousand cuts.
Media needs to get smaller, more targeted and more flexible. The idea of a monolithic public broadcaster trying to be all things to all people won’t work anymore. Journalists at the ABC don’t know who their audience is. In fact, I would wager they think they spend most of their time focused on trying not to get offside the politicians who control their budget and the spin doctors of those politicians who increasingly manage the news cycle.
The question still is whether there is a market for quality journalism. And, if so, who pays for it – because it is an expensive business. But I disagree with your implication that advertising-funded media and quality journalism are incompatible. If a media organisation can deliver an influential audience through quality journalism, advertising money will appear. It’s why the Sunday program survived so long on the Nine Network.
For instance, Lavratus Prodeo (with a name change!) could be turned into the online equivalent of a quality broadsheet – funded by advertising and sold on the basis of offering excellent analysis (you could have your own climate change column), Mark could offer political insights and Jack Strocchi could provide the back-page rants. You build up sufficient visibility and then you start garnering interviews with people. It’s never going to be the Herald Sun, but I think it could pay its way.
The point is that the ABC is a bit of an irrelevance. I think there is a real case for selling it off – save perhaps for the parliamentary broadcasts (which are webcast these days anyway), children’s programming and the farmers’ service. The rest of it is middle class welfare for a middle class that is looking elsewhere.
‘The point is that the ABC is a bit of an irrelevance. I think there is a real case for selling it off – save perhaps for the parliamentary broadcasts (which are webcast these days anyway), children’s programming and the farmers’ service. The rest of it is middle class welfare for a middle class that is looking elsewhere.’
Exactly! It currently serves no purpose, and is about as white as an elephant can get. Time to think of different solutions.
And give the bastards exactly what they wanted.
I think Aunty can be saved with decent leadership. Is it middle class welfare to be free from the constant noise of the market ringing in your ears? I think it’s more about basic human rights.
Once someone with a bit of an understanding of true journalism and what a public broadcaster should be about, is at the helm, things could change quite rapidly.
Changes to the way the board is chosen are already in place that will see an end to political appointments. A good start, I reckon.
I think ‘the bastards’ would be quite happy with the ABC just as it is – frightened, timid, mediocre and increasingly irrelevant. Why would they want to sell off the irrelevant bits and reinvigorate the rest?
I reckon they’ve got exactly what they want.
And that would put the Strocchiverse to the test in the marketplace of ideas, Mr Denmore!
Don’t think I haven’t thought seriously about what you’re suggesting, though. It’s a matter of getting some financial backing to free up people’s time and do a bit of promotion and editorial development. I think it would be a worthwhile endeavour. Watch this space!
Joe2 (and others) re the argument that taxpayers ought not to subsidise a service they don’t use. Are yez kiddin’? We all subsidise all sorts of activities through taxes for which we may have no use and in which we may have no interest: elite sports (AIS), AO (I like it but despite any subsidies still cannot really afford the ticket prices), the ARL and so on. Not to mention the entire state of Tasmania. Besides, it can be argued that even if you don’t use the servics of the ABC it is available should you ever so choose and ay pretty marginal annual cost. More than can be said for the AIS.
Running down a service through deliberate management strategy prior to getting rid of it altogether is not exactly a new game. A clear strategy in response to neoliberalism has always been to defend and sustain public assets and services. No time to stop that now.
joe2 – you can get all the ABC on Foxtel – the kids channels are excellent and advertisement free. The good dramas and docos also show up.
If you look at the Scott model it is about mimicking the commercial players. That is why the ABC has become a shadow of it’s former self. And it is probably no accident.
Adrian, given the opportunity, The Liberals mad belief in the wonders of the free market would trump even their enjoyment of Aunty, as their now kneeling propaganda tool.
You are actually in step with them. I say “repair her”.
Aahh!! What an accusation joe2. That hurts!
But I say ‘repair her’ too, by selling of the useless parts and inventing a new model of what a public broadcaster operates.
Or even ‘how a public broadcaster operates’.
I’ll never get a gig on the new LP!
Why should farmers get a service and the rest of the country not?
@117 – we can haz sub-editors, adrian!
Always ask yourself what would Uncle Rupert want? As we can see with the pressure Ltd News are putting on both the BBC & ABC over potential paywalls, the answer is simple. Don’t sell it off.
A bit off-topic but isn’t there some blog that does an annual Crikey subscription drive where you can get subs for less than half price? Does anyone know if that is still going ahead this year? IMO, the quality of Crikey has started to decline and it ain’t worth anything close to the now $150 a year they charge. For me anyway. I wouldn’t consider re-subscribing for that.
Jacques: precisely. What does the Dirty Digger want and how to outflank him. Reports from the States suggest that his outlets are working themselves up into an almost fascistic hysteria over Obama and there are few ways to provide alternative (rational) information to those whose political interest is low. Italy, under Berlusconi, is another worrying case study.
Isn’t it Nick Gruen on your own Club Troppo, Jacques?
Although I presume there was a certain amount of facetiousness in the comments by Mr.Denmore and Mark, particularly regarding the back page ranter, the suggestion that LP could expand and take over the role of quality journalism in Australia tomorrow and the world a few days later is not entirely implausible as Mark hinted.
I would support that [I'd be worried about the role of advertising tho'].
This place, despite my grumbles about it from time to time, is my primary source of news and information.
Other blog sites come second and Radio National, again despite my grumblings, is usually in the background, I’m one of those rural farmers you see.
But I would still like to have available a quality TV service.
And the commercial networks, and the word ‘commercial’ is a key component, just don’t cut it [except in the footy season].
I lived in Canada for a while and thanks to the proximity of 3 major US cities plus cable, had access to 120 odd [and most were] channels of crap.
Just because ABC TV has been forced down that path does not mean it has to continue travelling in that direction.
I agree with joe2 that whilst major surgery for the patient may be necessary there is still more than a spark of life left in the old fella and there will continue to be a need [important word] for a quality non-commercial TV network for I suspect many decades yet.
And please enough of the middle class slur, I ain’t middle class and if I’m gonna watch TV I will do it on a channel that offers quality programmes and service and the idea that that must mean middle class is an insult to working class fellas like me.
That will teach you turn your back on me, adrian.
(THORT U WOZ IN VETNAM)
Mark, I seriously think you have a business proposition here. You have a few very good writers on tap. You are developing a profile. You probably need to cross promote a little more aggressively than you do now. And once you establish more a presence, I would get your high-profile writers doing ABC spots as does Stephen Mayne as the ABC’s go-to man on business related issues.
Once you get sufficient advertising revenue, I’d hire a good sub-editor/news editor who can pull together a bunch of links and commission pieces that not only address the issues du jour, but which set the agenda. I’d commission a few outside opinion pieces and I’d aggressively market my best writers.
Crikey tries to do a lot of this, of course. But I’d argue that Crikey is still really a subscription newsletter with a website attached. Their best assets are Guy Rundle, Possum, William Bowe and Bernard Keane. But they don’t promote them hard enough, in my view. They are turning into brands of their own with blogs. But you have to go looking for them on the website. Should be in your face.
I don’t know who Strocchi is, but he is a wonder of nature, a journalistic treasure chest. You could build a website around his ravings. Fran Barlow is a good writer, too, as is a few of the other ones here like Grace. And I think Razor could hold up the right-wing column very successfully.
I’m sure you’re all on top of this, but if you need some editorial insight, you’ve got my email address. The best piece advice I have is say something provocative and interesting every day, publish consistently and reliably and never be shy about blowing your own horn.
Oh,and ask yourself whether you can seriously imagine Mel and Kochie saying “Well that’s the latest from Canberra. Joining us now for further insight from website Lavratus Prodeo is commentator…..
Back on Sunday, to work on Monday. Tiz a hard life joe2.
Wonderful place, Vietnam, although their TV stinks.
Just when you despair of the quality of ABC news, you hear worse. Today on FM commercial news I heard that Prince William is next in line for the throne.
Sorry, got my Jacques mixed up @122. But the message is the same. Gruen@ troppo.
I am not sure when the next group membership date is, though.
http://clubtroppo.com.au/
And on ABC Late News we had the following captions:
John Burmby
Prine William
Amusing …
No worries & thanks, Joe2.
I notice that the “Climate Change” special coverage button has disappeared from the right hand side of the ABC online page. I guess it isn’t such an important issue anymore – certainly not as important as Prince William’s visit.
Top current 6 news items on ABC online:
1. Navy wins gag on boat blast evidence
2. Prince William meets bushfire survivors
3. ABC to launch 24-hour news channel
4. Doug the koala bouncing back
5. Drunk driver crashes outside crash victim’s funeral
6. Ivanovic knocked out of Australian Open
No I am not joking.
Those who are wondering about the current direction of ABC Current Affairs should check out this article on the Mass. Senate election victory of Republican Scott Brown.
It reads like the OpEd pages of some rightwing US broadsheet, which isn’t surprising given that the author was Tim Wilson from the IPA.
For a moment I thought they’d simply lifted something from WSJ…
I, too, heard Joe Hockey’s interview on AM the other morning, full as it was, of the day’s talking points for the Coalition. They work them out ahead, it seems, then go looking for an accomodative ABC program and ‘political journalist’ to facilitate their getting the message out for the day.
I find it highly dispiriting to hear political journalists of the calibre of Sabra Lane, Lyndall Curtis, Leigh Sales, Tony Jones, Heather Ewitt and Chris Uhlmann, become toothless lap dogs when it comes to interviewing anyone from the Coalition. Sometimes they try and have a little bite, but it usually ends up getting slapped down by the Coalition MP in question, a process from which the interviewer doesn’t seem to want to recover from and try on again. Which, of course, causes me to start yelling at the radio or TV about how I could do a better job than they could, even knowing what little I do, compared to them, about politics.
I also really wanted to throw up over the holidays as I watched in horror at the softball interviews, x2, that Tony Abbott was allowed on the 7.30 Report. Chris Uhlmann(whom I suspect is a closet conservative), was the first, and Heather Ewitt conducted the second, and both times Tony Abbott put on his gimlet-eyed, hard man stare back in their direction when listening to their questions, and it just seemed to cause C.U. and H.E. to go weak at the knees and lose the plot(if, indeed, they ever even wanted to ask him any probing questions). Then, all Abbott had to do by the end of the interview was to let the hard Tony facade slip, and especially wrt to H.E., emote a bit and smoulder in her general direction, and for C.U., to make a risque comment, and they became putty in his hands, with the interview ending with Tony triumphant, unbroken and unbowed. When are the ABC’s political journalists going to grow a backbone wrt interviewing Coalition MPs?
They were well-intimidated during the Howard years, and they don’t appear to have recovered. On the other hand, they can certainly find the spite and bile when it comes to interviewing, and making comment upon, Labor politicians. Leigh Sales is an especially egregious offender in this department. Who are they trying to impress, I wonder, by such obviously unbalanced behaviour? Maybe they ARE afraid of a Coalition win in the election this year, and the fact that the Coalition would have been taking names?
Maybe they’re all too wealthy as journalists these days and they have no stomach for confronting, nor can see the inequity in, the policies of the Conservatives?
Even ‘Insiders’ is now no more than an unbalanced ABC platform for News Ltd. and Fairfax journalists, with an ABC facilitator, in this case Barry Cassidy.
‘Balance’ should never = accomodation.
HillbillySkeleton
But there’s nothing to be done. We would hope that for all the spite thrown the ALP’s way they would not seek to censor or sack. Which to theuir credit they haven’t.
However given one side of politics that won’t censor them and another quite prepared to take down names and pay back in full once Abbott wins…..it’s just logic in the end.
tssk – name one ABC journalist that was sacked in the 11 years of the Howard government for giving them a hard time? How on earth did Red Kerry keep his job?
No-one got sacked, Razor, but there was the relentless, grinding bullshit about bias (with the ensuing enquiries) that just kept coming every time an ABC journo exposed one of Howards lies, or mentioned a few inconvenient facts about the conduct of the war, or kiddies overboard, or …
I think the poor bastards just got ground down and intimidated.
Don’t be silly Razor, there’s no need to cause a fuss and sack anyone. Just make it clear to the new recruits what’s necessary to get ahead. It’s why ambitious employees such as Virginia Trioli got the message loud and clear and changed from being an impartial journalist with a reputation as a ‘lefty’ to a clearly partisan mouthpiece for the coalition. Seemed to coincide with her move from Melbourne to Sydney.
It’s also why the only ones with any backbone are longstanding journalists who are already at the top of their field, though only one or two seem to fit into this category.
It’s also why the latest recruit to Radio National comes from Radio 2UE, hardly a breeding ground for quality journalism.
It’s also no coincidence that the MD is a former(?) member of the Liberal Party.
Having been on the end of a newspaper article that was completely factually wrong and misquoted me completely I can understand why the pollies, of any hue, put all Journos under the hammer constantly. And I have seen from an ALP politician’s (Minister) view point how the journos spin stories to get an angle versus the facts.
Poor little journos – good at handing it out, but when it comes to getting it back at them or getting their facts straight then they get all miffy. Can’t handle the heat – get out of the kitchen.
“It’s also no coincidence that the MD is a former(?) member of the Liberal Party.”
Yer, I wonder if Mark Scott is a member of The Liberal Party. Check out the current ABC Board under this link and hit on the members names you may not know. Howard stacked it completely. We should not be at all surprised at it’s current direction.
Still, given that all future participants are to be chosen on merit rather than their relationship to the former P.M. it might start to improve from this current low over the next 5-10 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Scott_(businessman)
I think he’s a former Liberal Party staffer in NSW.
Here’s an interesting section from an interview he did with Julia Biard when he first gained the role:
According to The Australian the ABC’s new 24 hour news channel is “a taxpayer funded declaration of war”. Anyone still think selling off the ABC is a great idea? Good to see the Pure Poison peeps are on to this:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2010/01/21/a-taxpayer-funded-declaration-of-war/
Jacques de Molay @ 141: that’s a hysterically funny link, as is the OO piec that it points to!
Lessee: a taxpayer-funded entity (Aunty) provides a taxpayer-desired service (decent-quality news, 24/7). What’s the problem? If Someone thinks this is ‘war’, does that mean that said Someone is themselves engaging in war against the taxpayers?
In the case of Far-Unbalanced Limited News, the answer is self-evident. To succeed as a business, they should be producing what we want. If they won’t do that, then they have no business whingeing about competition that will. We The Taxpayers probably don’t have much to fear from an armed agressor that precious.
I’ve been baffled as to why people on this site have developed some kind of giant collective neurosis about the ABC at this point in time.
I’m certainly not interested in defending everything happening at the ABC, but the idea that it is Ground Zero of some giant right wing conspiracy against the Rudd Government says more about a certain mode of paranoid leftist thinking than it does about what is actually happening on ABC news and current affairs programs.
@125 – Cheers, Mr Denmore!
At the risk of being Strocchian, I’ve written several times since 2007 about the virtues of selling ABC TV – which serves no useful public purpose and consumes extraordinary resources to the detriment of other ABC functions – and adopting a new ABC charter that makes it primarily a truly independent news organisation. I mean one that employs journalists who report the news and investigate interesting stories, as opposed to hacks who compile he says/she says compendiums from their desks and then do supercilious opinion pieces designed to show off the ‘journalist’s’ superior insider knowledge and intelligence.
IDK if Strocchian is a word but it ought to be.
Terry@144, this is no “conspiracy theory” because there is plenty of evidence for what is being claimed.
It is just that you prefer not to acknowledge it. Probably not bother to read it.
For instance, I ask you to look through the list of board members of the ABC that are in the link I provided @140 and tell me why I should conclude other than that those members are anything other than hand picked Liberal cronies.
And following from that, ABC independence has been largely compromised over the past few years.
Ah ha, if you don’t acknowledge the conspiracy, you must be a part of the conspiracy. I’ve heard that one before …
A not very good dodge, Terry.
Yeah, all those close personal friends of John Howard on the board are only there to arrange the furniture.
We know all that about the Board of the ABC. Howard thought the culture of the ABC was leftist, and the Coalition sought to stack the Board with their political fellow travelers. What they discovered – and which any previous Board member could have told them – was that the influence of the ABC Board over the organisation is tangential at best. I can’t see how finding that the ABC Board has a lot of right-wingers on it proves that the news coverage is in the pocket of the Liberal Party.
The ABC is not a monolithic entity, nor can it be completely independent of the forces that surround it. What is should be prepared to do is probe those with power and influence in some depth. That means questioning the claims of the government. I’m very surprised that so many people on this site – who presumably favour a vibrant public sphere – equate that with being the corrupt lap dogs of the Liberal Party.
If you;re hearing more Shadow Ministers on AM at the moment, it may be because they’ve started work earlier in January. Given that they are behind in the polls in an election year, that would hardly be surprising. Rudd was clearly fine to declare himself “off duty” until late last week, except for occasional forays into the cricket commentary.
I just think that the “Joe Hockey got let off lightly on AM, therefore the ABC is the mouthpiece of the Liberal Party” is a lame and conspiratorial mode of argument.
“I just think that the “Joe Hockey got let off lightly on AM, therefore the ABC is the mouthpiece of the Liberal Party” is a lame and conspiratorial mode of argument.”
Yep it would be “lame” and nobody has made that simplistic argument.
C’mon, the entire mode of argument here has been anecdotal, and drawing larger conclusions from small case studies (usually one news item). Demonstrating media bias is a much more complex business than is on evidence here.
There has been over three decades of conservative writers seeking to prove left-wing bias at the ABC, so if you guys want to prove right-wing bias, the arguments will need to be a lot more robust than what has been seen on this site thus far.
Well we could quote the recent academic study which found that there was systematic bias to the conservative side of politics at the ABC, but no doubt you’d find some reason to dismiss this also.
Here is a bit of a reading for you Terry. The report was based on study done up until 2007. Things have most certainly gone down hill since then.
http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/MediaSlant_media.pdf
I wouldn’t dismiss it at all. I would note that there are a lot of studies on this topic. I also think the point is being missed that, when Labor is the government, we expect the ABC to be more critical of it, as we would about the Coalition when they are the government. That’s about the “Fourth Estate” function of media, and I’m surprised to see it being rejected as bourgeois liberalism.
Joe2, you are concerned about simplistic arguments. Then you quote a rigorous 2007 study that is worth considering, but add “things have most certainly gone down hill since then”. And on what is the latter proposition based? A Joe Hockey interview on AM?
Balance, Terry. Rigorous and anecdotal.
Ken @ 146, we’ve disagreed before about selling bits of the ABC. I appreciate your point that taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund my taste for quality television without advertising, but let’s face it: who, if not the ABC, is going to air anything worth watching?
And, of course, if you sell it off, you just end up with yet another TV station playing variants of Big Fucking Brother.
During the Howard years, a lot of under-performance of its Ministers went undiscussed because there were a steady stable of voices who would equate criticism of the relevant Minister with evidence of bias on the part of whoever was presenting the story. Downer as Foreign Minister was the most obvious beneficiary of this, but it was pretty widespread.
If the ABC is now being expected by its “friends” on the left to avoid critical scrutiny of Rudd Government ministers by those who see this as evidence that is therefore a Liberal party mouthpiece, that does not bode well for that particular vision of how parliamentary democracies should work. I’m surprised that the culture of knee-jerk reaction to reasonable scrutiny has set in so strongly so early in the government’s tenure.
Thanks, Terry@160.
You have just made clear a crucial point. When the Liberals were in power they recieved very little criticism. Now that Labor is in power they are constantly under the gun. That stinks, mate.
If things were done fairly you would see no criticism from me.
Terry, I think the objection many of us have (and, believe me, I’m no friend of the Labor Party) is that it appears that the ABC just mindlessly repeats whatever line The Australian happens to be running.
Believe it or not, this is actually NOT good journalism.
Amen to that DI(NR).
DI (no relation) @ 159: ‘who, if not the ABC, is going to air anything worth watching?’.
David you could try PAYING for whatever it is you want to watch. These new-fangled DVDs are pretty good I’m told and ideally suited to let you fulfill your ‘worth watching’ dreams without someone else having to pay for them. Or if you insist on watching something for nothing, there’s always the intertubes.
@160 – Surely, Terry, the crux of the issue is that there’s a difference between “rigorous scrutiny” and sound bites from Chrissie Pyne.
Ken, there aren’t too many DVDs I’d bother to watch either.
Razor, you are of course right. I withdraw my claim. Howard was also incredibly patient with shows like The Chaser and The Glasshouse.
Thanks to Razor and Terry for injecting some sense into the thread.
Maybe Ken Lovell means P.V.R. rather than D.V.D, DI(NR)@166. Some neat set top boxes have a hard drive that helps in avoiding ads. Anyway, just guessing.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it one Rudd, K. that denounced The Chaser to the point where it received a two-week suspension from ABC Managing Director Mark Scott.
You need to stop confusing a hypothetical Rudd Government of an idealised imagination from the one that occupies the government benches in Canberra.
Terry, you’re completely missing the point here. The argument isn’t about whether the ABC should put the government on the spot. The problem is that its idea of putting the government on the spot is just to be a lazy foghorn for the half-baked 5am ideas of fevered Liberal Party spinners. No bullshit filter at all as far as I can discern.
Good journalism involves coming up with your own tough and considered questions, not mindlessly mouthing the talking points of the oppostion or, worse, the unofficial opposition in the Murdoch media. But it seems the ABC’s hacks have been so cowed by balance fascists and timekeepers that whatever raw journalist instincts (commonly defined as a “nose for news”) they once had, have evaporated.
The ABC is supposed to be a strong independent voice, not a loud hailer to be passed between one political party and another when it’s “their turn”. That’s why some of us here are asking that if the journalism is so pitiful and gutless and gormless and servile, what is the point of having a public broadcaster?
As some who spent 25 years as a journalist, I have to say the standard of journalism at the ABC now is pathetic. The place appears to be full of drones and careerists and people who are quite happy to recycle opposition press releases so they can have a quiet life.
It doesn’t matter where your individual political sympathies lie in this debate by the way. This isn’t just another lame extension of the culture blog wars. It’s about the standards of professional journalism in this country and whether we’re being best served by our media institutions, particularly the ones paid for by taxpayers’ money and with a charter that requires them to vigorously independent.
I’d be very happy to see as much genuine criticism of the ALP in office as anyone could manage to produce. What we get, though, is crap commentary from nerdy looking spinmeisters who can barely conceal their cynical grins.
There are very significant social and political issues in Australia that never get touched by the ABC like, my favourite gripe, current plans to ‘normalise’ national occupational health and safety legislation which means, in NSW, removing the capacity of unions to initiate legal remedial action against employers. There are other equally significant changes. This is against a background in which the data on annual morbidity and mortality rates at a national and state level is a deep mystery. No-one really knows how many people die each year from occupational causes/accidents although those in the field routinely suggest that the national annual accidental occupational death easily outstrips the annual national road toll.
ABC examination of underlying structural issues? Nil. ALP flag waving about Bernie Banton? Heaps. Rudd thinks he’s a hero for finally recognising Banton and asbestos related diseases but the reality is that it was a bloody long time coming through successive generations of state and federal ALP governments before any changes happened.
Critical investigative commentary would be a welcome change.
Critical appraisal of why the ALP is not pursuing charges over the AWB and a close examination of the role of the AFP in the sinking of the SIEVE-X ought to be prosecuted as well. ABC commentary? Nil.
what Mr Denmore and anthony nolan said.
What people like Terry consistently overlook or fail to understand is the fact that most here would love some informed, intelligent and independent criticism of both the government and the opposition, in addition to coverage of topics and issues that seem off limits to the media in this country.
You only have to read the comments on this blog to realise that most are themselves are critical of many aspects of government policy.
To reiterate: it’s about the standard of journalism, a standard that the ABC should be upholding, not blindly following the commercials as they descend ever further into irrelevance. The partisan, superficial and second hand nature of the coverage of federal politics is just one indicator of this decline.
To make it clear I’m not against the ALP being investigated and/or critisised by the ABC. I’d love to see some real hacks dig their claws into what’s happening in NSW under the ALP rather than this blind pattern.
As for the Chaser, some of you might forget the pressure put on them by the Howard government to be less biased. They got around this by singing the Liberal parties praises for a certain block of time. With a choir.
If the concerns being expressed here were about the standards of ABC journalism, why was so much of the discussion framed in terms of pro-Liberal Party bias?
They are logically different questions.
Simple, Terry. Because that is what is happening, as well.
Why should it be split up because you don’t like it?
In fairness, though, there are different levels of concern, or even no concern, about bias amongst people here.
The main concern is crap journalism.
Terry is right. I have to leave aside any questions of pro Coalition and anti ALP bias because the ALP is in powerr. They are the ones that need to be examined. They are the ones that need to be put on the spot.
I have my own views and complaints about the ABC going soft on the Coalition in the past few years because….well it would just be whining now. The Coalition is out of power and really, despite my own veiws on pro Coalition bias in the media if that were true wouldn’t Howard still be in power?
No, the question shouldn’t be why is the ABC bashing the ALP and going soft on the Coalition. The question should be why is the ABC not being more robust in their analysis of the ALP and why aren’t they giving voice more convincing Coalition views?
In my eyes it’s pro right bias. In the eyes of my conservative friends it’s a con by the ABC to merely look balanced.
Rubbish tssk.
Terry just does not want to hear anything bad said about his beloved Liberal Party.
Same with your point about Labor in power being evidence of lack of media bias. Labor maintains it’s position and won the last election despite significant media bias.
Maybe Mark Scott is so keen to get his 24 hour news chanel up so he can help his Liberal mates by continuing to distort government positions on just about everything.
Go back to what I said earlier. It’s not a con by the ABC to look balanced. It’s simply because they can’t be bothered coming up with interesting lines of attack against the government on their own accord.
Putting the government under the gun and merely recycling the Opposition talking points of the day aren’t the same thing. The latter is the quick option, especially if you are under-funded and stretched. It is just easier to ring Barnaby Joyce for a comment. There’s the lead story for the next bulletin sorted.
Personally, I think their current approach is convenient for them. It spares them working too hard, it fills gaps in the schedule, it keeps the wolves of the Right off their backs and it ostensibly proves they are not a nest of lefties. It also keeps them in the good books with their CEO, who is keen for ABC news to look and sound as much as possible like Channels Seven and Nine.
People outside journalism also need to understand that what motivates reporters is not pushing their their own individual biases but getting a good story, telling it well and winning recognition from peers for that. The prospect of a scoop is what keeps you coming to work every day. It doesn’t matter who ends up looking bad out of it. There may still be a few partisan hacks out there, but they don’t last long.
By all means, the ABC should go after the government and ask them tough questions. But neither should they let go unchallenged patent falsehoods and furphies peddled by the opposition. In my day, there were grizzled old sub-editors sitting in a corner who who refused to run stories like that because they were so predictable. “What do you expect them to say laddie??”
I have such a device, joe2 @ 168 – it’s a PC with a TV tuner card, and disk space out the wazoo.
It’s not actually the ads I mind so much (I’m quite happy watching SBS), it’s the unmitigated tosh they pack around them, in the expectation it’ll deliver my eyes and ears to some shill for deodorant.
I concur Mr Denmore. The MSM has become obsessed with conflict and presents virtually every issue in terms of its implications for some deeper struggle. In sport, for example, there are very few stories any more about athletes’ actual performance. It’s all about whether someone can hang on to the captaincy, or did they have girls in their rooms at the pre-season camp, or some other issue about conflict and dissension.
Public affairs are presented as an endless struggle for tactical gain at a party-political level; thus the obsession with polls and the efforts to interpret every event in terms of electoral impact. If there is no conflict story available just invent one – I’m sure some journo is itching to run a ‘Gillard to challenge Rudd?’ story as soon as they can manufacture some remotely credible narrative.
We can see the outcome of this public-policy-as-game-playing in the USA, where one party has opted for irresponsible nay-saying as its sole policy. Moreover it’s being extremely effective thanks to media clowns who love the status of being up there with senators and the president in terms of power and influence. When psychopaths like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are widely recognised as key policy-shapers in the Republican Party, you know the depth to which public policy has sunk in that country.
The ABC gets so much criticism for being pro-Liberal because as others have written, it seizes so uncritically on any lies or nonsense peddled by the Libs and gives them credibility by demanding that the government respond. It’s not journalism; it’s juvenile game-playing.
That’s clarity from Ken Lovell and Mr Denmore.
Its a long time since anyone defending the ABC against allegations of bias got called a Liberal Party stooge!
Was it Grahame Morris or Peter Costello who described the ABC as “Our enemies talking to our friends”?
Peter who?
Former member for Missy Higgins