The ABC’s 50-page “Introduction to the Editorial Policies 2007” may well be a rod for its own back, but sometimes it is a back that needs a rod taken to it.
ABC managing director Mark Scott delivered the document this week, ruffling a lot of feathers within the ABC and among print commentators and Labor and Green politicians.
Most commentary has been about the bias question (more on that anon). But perhaps a more significant change will come if Scott succeeds in his pledge to revamp the ABC’s complaints procedure.
The ABC, and broadcasters generally in Australia, have been too arrogant for too long.
How often do you hear or see a correction (ital) broadcast (end ital) in Australia? Rarely you might get a deadpan correction extracted on pain of legal action months or years after the event.
Yet most days you will see corrections in The Canberra Times, The Sydney Morning Herald or The Age.
Print is arrogant enough, but broadcast is worse.
There seems to be a mindset among many journalists, publishers and broadcasters that they cannot be wrong. Even when caught out they are reluctant to admit it.
Scott might reverse a downward spiral in reporting. Journalists are dealing with ever more slippery politicians, lobbyists, commercial interests and media advisers, so editors and others investigating complaints have to take the complaints with a grain (or whole pitcher) of salt. That causes a siege mentality and a greater reluctance to correct for fear that the correction itself might turn out to be wrong. That in turn leads to fewer corrections and a growing attitude among people with genuine grievances that it is a waste of time to pursue corrections and apologies. So more journalists get away with bad practice.
The low-water mark for the ABC was perhaps the 68 complaints lodged in May, 2003 by then Communications Minister Richard Alston about coverage of the Iraq war. It might have been partly a political stunt, but it had some merits. Nevertheless, the ABC’s internal review dismissed 66 of the complaints and took two months to do it. The then managing director Russell Balding said the ABC and its staff were vindicated.
But the Independent Complaints Review upheld 17 of the dismissed complaints and the Australian Broadcasting Authority upheld four more in March 2005. The process took nearly two years. About a third of Alston’s complaints were ultimately upheld.
It is interesting that Scott, who has a background in journalism, appears likely to be tougher on the ABC’s journalists than his predecessor whose background was managerial.
Things might improve. Broadcasting might come under greater pressure to correct errors as technology widens. Hitherto, broadcasts went into the ether and only the determined defamation suitor would order an expensive transcript or recording from a media monitor to check what exactly was said. Only in print did they have you over a barrel. But now with podcasts and transcripts on line it may well be more complainants will come forward with more compelling cases.
The test for Scott will be how often the record is set straight on air – or even if the ABC does not wish to burn valuable broadcast time with corrections, it could use its website for the task. But you would have to change the culture of arrogance.
Commerce does better with corrections than the media these days. True, its arm has been twisted by the Trade Practices Act, but commercial culture has changed a lot and businesses are seeing the sense in admitting mistakes.
On the other hand, not many in the media see the obvious advantage of admitting errors: it means everything else you publish carries more credibility.
But what about bias? Here Scott’s approach has some difficulties. Sure the ABC should be free from bias overall and should be a conduit for a variety of views.
But Scott said that his new policy “says upfront that as a creator, broadcaster and publisher of news and current-affairs content, there is a requirement for impartiality”.
“Each news and current affairs story and program must be impartial,” he said. “For opinion programs or programs of topical and factual content, individual items of content can take a particular perspective, but the ABC must be able to demonstrate that it has provided audiences with a range of different perspectives on the subject under consideration.”
That is a recipe for blandness. It would result in marching orders for Michael Duffy and Phillip Adams. It would mean an end to programs like theirs which come at events from a given perspective.
It would be fine to demand one leftie program be balanced with one rightie program, for want of better words. But to demand that each program overall be impartial would deprive listeners and viewers with presenters they love or love to hate.
Sure, demand the news be impartial and demand anchor current affairs programs like AM, PM and the 7.30 report be impartial. But not every program. What next, equal space for atheists on “Compass”? Equal space for quacks on the Health Report and astrologers on the Science Show?
If Scott forces Duffy to run a “fair share” of greenies, environmentalists, unionists and socialists on his program and Adams to run a “fair share” of Christian fundamentalists and creationists on his show, the ABC should pack it in.
In any event, it is in the nature of things that journalism attracts people who are interested in change. The pre-occupation of journalism is change. People of a conservative disposition are suspicious of change and are less likely to be attracted to journalism. This is perhaps the main reason why John Howard who has successfully imposed conservatism on so many parts of Australian society has singularly failed at the ABC.