In defence of an independent ABC

The attacks on Australia’s public broadcaster by the government and News Corp are political, ideological and opportunistic

Amanda Meade

On Tuesday afternoon Tony Abbott stepped in front of the cameras and reflected on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s reporting of the Indonesian phone tapping revelations. “I think the ABC were guilty of poor judgment in broadcasting that material which was obviously difficult for Australia's national security and long-term best interests,” he said.

It was an extraordinary comment for the prime minister to make about the editorial decisions of a public broadcaster independent of government interference and concerns. But perhaps not a surprising one. Abbott’s words echoed those of his communications minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who has earlier labelled the ABC’s co-operation with Guardian Australia over material about Australian intelligence targeting the mobile phones of the Indonesian president, his wife and their inner circle “a shocking error of judgment”.

The ABC's managing director, Mark Scott, seemed forced to take to one of his own stations to defend the broadcaster from a barrage of criticism about its involvement in the story. “I think in a sense there is some ideology behind some of the critics,” he told ABC News 24.

Many would agree with him. On the same day Scott was fighting for ABC independence, and Abbott and Turnbull questioned the ABC’s editorial judgment, in the Coalition party room critics were airing old grievances: that the public service broadcaster hurts commercial media players, has too many TV channels, costs far too much.

On Wednesday morning, the Liberal backbencher Cory Bernardi called for the ABC's online news service to be curtailed because it competed with Fairfax Media and News Corp. "We could perhaps cut the ABC budget and allow the commercial media operators to compete more effectively," he told Radio National.

These are many of the arguments also made in the Australian, the News Corp national daily which has been mounting a sustained campaign to undermine the ABC. On Tuesday, among other things, it described Scott as being in a “bromance” with the Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger.

It is hardly news that politicians and commercial rivals find the public service broadcaster an irritant. It wouldn’t be doing its job if they didn’t. But despite Coalition promises not to cut the ABC’s funding, the noise coming from News Corp and the Coalition government is unsettling those who believe in a stronger rather than weaker public broadcaster. 

The ABC’s opponents are baying for blood. “The case for a major review of public broadcasting is overwhelming and it will be surprising if the Abbott government does not announce one in its first term,” wrote the Australian columnist Nick Cater this week. 

But what case? Is political reaction to a story going to be used as an excuse for overhauling the broadcaster? And what does that say for the future of independent reporting in this country? The ABC is not an arm of government; it is independent. It exists to serve the people of Australia and not the government of the day. 

The ABC is not just a news and current affairs department and a single TV station. It serves the community on every level, from emergency services to community information to reflecting and nurturing Australian culture. There are five radio networks including local stations which serve regional and rural areas and are a lifeline for isolated communities. It provides commercial-free programs for children and innovative dramas such as Redfern Now which challenge and confront.

The corporation has been a leader in catch-up TV, online news and podcasts, and mobile services. In a country dominated by one media corporation, a vital independent public broadcaster is essential for democracy. 

Inside the ABC there is consternation that the current barrage of criticism will be used as justification for paring the organisation back. Media commentators outside the corporation are wondering why members of the government are instructing the independent ABC on how or what to report.

“Is Malcolm Turnbull wanting the ABC to be the equivalent of Pravda, just a ministerial mouthpiece?” asks the academic Jenna Price. “Australians want a free, fair and frank broadcaster responsible to its citizens, not to its government. That's what protects us.”

The former ABC chairman Mark Armstrong eloquently explained the antipathy politicians feels towards the public broadcaster. “Politicians are in the business of managing information to make themselves look good,” he said. “No commercial outlet is as turbulent, as investigative or as critical as the ABC. Why should the politicians feed the mouth that bites them? 

But first the prime minister – "I think it's fair enough for people to question the judgment of the ABC" – and now his communications minister have attacked the broadcaster, deflecting attention from the details of and government reaction to the Indonesia story on to the governance of their troublesome public broadcaster.

Turnbull’s quote on Tuesday morning – "I thought it was an error of judgment on their part to publish that material" – reported in the Australian, is just the latest in a long line of anti-ABC stories from the Murdoch-owned paper.

Emboldened by obtaining a substantial package of payroll information, mistakenly released by the ABC in a shocking blunder, the paper has published more than a dozen news stories, editorials and columns on that subject alone. It is a juicy story, but coverage was overegged and drawn out interminably; the relatively low salaries of ABC presenters not compared to their commercial equivalent in any meaningful way.

The ABC’s reporting on the Indonesian spy story with Guardian Australia has also been a favourite subject – along with a shopping list of sins. Little wonder Scott came out to publicly address his critics on Tuesday.

“We have come under concentrated attack from News Corp,” he said. “Some aspects seem quite obsessed by us and I think there are some who have an ideological opposition to public broadcasting. I think there are some who think they would make more money if the ABC wasn’t what it is today.”

With those remarks Scott got to the heart of the issue. The newspaper is ideologically opposed to a public broadcaster. It believes the ABC is taxpayer-funded competition for an already stretched commercial media, and has expanded far beyond its original remit with ABC Online, digital channels, a 24-hour news channel and an overseas channel, Australia Network, which should – News Corp believes – rightly be run by Sky News.

As a media writer for the Australian for many years, I reported on the ABC. I was at times an annoyance to managing directors, including Mark Scott. I wrote about cuts to foreign bureaus and programming, the cost of outsourcing TV, staff redundancies and the exploits of one MD who was eventually to be sacked by the board, Jonathan Shier. But I never advocated that the ABC should be stripped of funding, reined in or prevented from reporting stories that may hurt the government.

Attacks from News Corp papers, in particular from the Australian, are now so frequent that there can be no pretence the paper is running anything but a campaign. Where anti-ABC material once might have been found on the comment pages, now it seems to be reported as news, despite some stories having little news value.

Monday, for example, saw the paper arguing the ABC should not be promoting Twitter and Facebook on its programs – even while the Australian’s story featured the button for sharing on social-media platforms attached to every story.

The leaking of the salaries of the ABC’s on-air talent and management has given the paper the ammunition it has been craving. Kerry O’Brien – the subject of a long-term vendetta from News Corp editors – was attacked for daring to be paid at all for his interview series with Paul Keating, after his salary was not disclosed because he left the corporation.

The Australian has been trying to find out how much O’Brien is paid for a very long time. His critics believe that he was overpaid because he only worked “part time” when he was hosting The 7.30 Report, which was national four nights a week only. It explains the glee behind the leaking of the ABC payroll. 

The payroll was the worst thing News Corp has been able to find on the ABC in its many years of trying. It came at the same time as the broadcaster decided to publish with Guardian Australia, creating a perfect storm. The same could be said for the government. This is opportunism at its most naked – two organisations ideologically opposed to the public broadcaster, manufacturing an opportunity to demand its overhaul. 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/04/in-defence-of-an-independent-abc