The Coalition party room meeting yesterday was apparently focussed on the ABC and what ought to be done about it, or to it. There were some there who would sell it off, some who would just abolish it, some who are just angry with it but don’t have a solution,  and some who would sack the CEO, Mark Scott. For my part, I would simply like it to stick to its excellent principles and code of conduct, about which I’ve written before, here and here. I think Australia would be better off with a properly independent ABC.

Senator Cory Bernardi said that whatever else it was, it was ‘not our ABC’ — by which he certainly meant ‘the Coalition’s ABC’ — and on that he is certainly right. Mr Turnbull, the responsible Minister, said that Mark Scott had made a shocking error of judgment by collaborating with Guardian Australia in publishing further leaks from whistleblower/traitor Edward Snowden. No doubt Mr Scott hasn’t made the Coalition any happier with his performance by saying that he might do it again, if there were a  suitable story.

It needs to be remembered that Mr Howard appointed both a Chairman and Board members who might be thought to be independent. One of the Board members, Ron Brunton, later wrote  a more-than-sorrow-than-in-anger essay about how management duchessed the Board throughout his time there. The Chairman in question, Maurice Newman, also seemed to feel that he and the Board had been unable to control what I have called the ‘political culture’ of the Corporation’s staff.

In late 2012, after he had left, he wrote a couple of pieces on the ABC and climate change, which drew a good deal of ire from those within the ABC. You can read all about it here, and in that essay he told a story which is worth repeating in this present context:

In March 2010 as chairman, I addressed an in-house conference of 250 ABC leaders. In a speech titled “Trust is the future of the ABC”, I asked, “how might we ensure in our newsrooms we celebrate those who interrogate every truth?” I lamented the mainstream media’s role as an effective gatekeeper. It was too conformist and had missed the warning signs of financial failure. I blamed group think and used climate change as an example. My mistake was to mention climate change.

While most company chairs would find the tenor of my talk unremarkable, Jonathon Holmes, the presenter of Media Watch, was so angry “he could not concentrate”. He found it an inappropriate forum for such remarks. I was interviewed by PM and teased as to whether I was a “climate change denier or not as obvious as that?” As a further censure, that night Tony Jones read a statement on Lateline saying: “Tonight, ABC management responded to Mr Newman’s speech, saying it stands by the integrity of its journalists and its processes.”

Journalistic integrity? Encouraging the leadership to achieve higher standards is to question its integrity? Surely wanting to improve performance is an elementary objective for any organisation, but rather than take on board the challenges I outlined, management decided to put a distance between us.

I remember all this very well, and it points to the problem that Mr Abbott and Mr Turnbull will have if they want to change things.  What exactly would you do? I have said before that the ABC’s formal statement of how it should behave are excellent. The problem is that those who work under them interpret these rules in a what I would call a blinkered way. For them what they do is, or so it seems to me, already unbiassed and independent (and virtuous, and on the side of history, as well). Someone like Mr Newman is plainly, to them, well to the right, and a climate change denier as well.

Nothing seems to change. The ABC has been reporting what the newly formed ‘Climate Council’ has to say, as though it possessed some kind of gold standard as an authoritative source of knowledge on global warming and ‘climate change’. It has no such authority, and lacked it even when its proponents worked for the Labor Government as  the Climate Commission. In my judgment it was as close to a Ministry of Propaganda as Australia has even seen.

And at much the time I was writing this essay, the ABC broadcast an interview with a Melbourne academic who was telling listeners that we were in for a four-degree-warming world. Not even the IPCC says this, and the interviewer had the grace to be startled: ‘The planet has warmed only about 0.8 of a degree since the industrial revolution. The latest IPCC report shows the pace of warming has actually stabilised in recent years. Isn’t this just too extreme an analysis to be taken seriously?

To which the academic replied: Look, the stabilisation that has occurred at the moment is regarded by most climate scientists as temporary. These sort of projections that we are now looking at the moment are not alarmist at all. I think they’re actually probably conservative under the circumstances. They don’t factor in a number of other feedbacks which may occur as warming continues and as we move past certain tipping points.

I can only describe this as old-hat alarmism, based on model projections which have no status for accuracy, and on extreme estimates for climate sensitivity. Why is the ABC broadcasting stuff like this, and why is no dissenter called upon to point out its obvious errors?

Maurice Newman described it as ‘religion’, and I agree with him. But how is the Government to put a stop to it? Does freedom of religion apply to the ABC?

Join the discussion 10 Comments

  • dlb says:

    I’m glad you brought up this topic Don, it is something that has raised my ire in the past fortnight. To me the ABC has crossed the line into activism by outing the spying allegations. I used to think the ABC offered considered, unbiased reporting but their one sided coverage of the climate debate has made me sit up and observe them more closely.

    I’d like to think the Government can do something to rein in the activist elements within the organisation. Like you I think the organisation has done great good in the past and should continue to play a role with content and style not offered by the commercial stations. I would hate to see it gone from our culture.

    Until something is done, I think in the meantime we should treat the ABC in the best (worst?) Australian tradition of mockery. Many in the organisation have just got too big for their own boots.

  • Walter Starck says:

    The ABC has quite obviously made an editorial decision that DAGW is unquestionably real and deserves prominent coverage. It is also apparent that they choose to ignore or minimise the reporting of any news that would conflict with this position. They are neither qualified nor commissioned to make such a determination and it is a violation of their obligation to provide unbiased reporting of news and national affairs.

    A solution might be to identify important matters (such as CC) about which there is an obvious ongoing imbalance in coverage and impose annual budget cuts until this is rectified.

  • Lysander says:

    I too am glad you raised this. Over the last 12 months I have written several emails to the ABC with a “please explain.” Particular reference is given to Annabel Crabb’s love over Al Gore and how she let him get away with blue murder (calling sceptics big oil lobbying government and as a conspiracy. {Note: As if Greens never lobbied government!}).
    The (appauling) response I got back from the ABC was “Mr Gore is a well know polemicist so such statements, not facts, should be expected from him.”
    I watched it again and replied saying Mr Gore often premised these statements with the phrase “this is a fact; I’m not making this up.” The ALPBC just don’t care. They are the Platonic Philosopher Kings, elitist and towering above all others.
    Google this: Alex Sloan, ABC, Barnaby Joyce and you will find an interview online where Joyce totally destroys Sloan because “she hasn’t heard of (these crazy) scientists called Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer or John Christy.” Barnaby goes to town on this! (and rightfully so).
    It’s now on my itunes fave list! 🙂

    • Don Aitkin says:

      I’ve been interviewed by Alex Sloan too, and she is good-humoured. But I fancy that she too was, and maybe still is, a ‘believer’.

  • PeterE says:

    So Jonathon Holmes got so angry he could not concentrate? The usual procedure is first to laugh off the offending remark. This turns it aside for 65 per cent of listeners who join nervously in the laughter. Only if the wrongdoer persists do you need to go into the white-hot with anger stage. That frightens off another 38 per cent. It is that last two per cent who call for the most drastic action and then you get the boycott of the lectures and anything else that makes life so difficult that the offender leaves. As Lee Kwan Yu said, ‘these fellows are not jokers.’ The ABC is under the control of this crowd. They cannot be reformed by the Chairman, the Board or the Managing Director. The government must legislate to split the ABC into two authorities. One would deal with fine music and the arts, sports, children’s shows, nature, repeats of overseas comedies and the like. The other would be the news and political reporting of Australia and the world. The final step would be to privatise the latter. No half measures will work.

    • Don Aitkin says:

      Yes, I’ve seen others argue for the division into two organisations (though someone who did so also wanted the kids’ programs to go with News and Current Affairs, because they were now tainted too).

      There is something in that, and it will be interesting to see if the idea gains any traction.

      • PeterE says:

        Oh, I though it was an original idea of my own that hit me when I was lunching with some elite friends the other day. Whatever is done, we can count on all hell breaking loose. What will Jonathon do, for example. But something must be done.

  • […] made a similar point about the treatment of climate issues on the ABC, where only the scary stuff is ever mentioned. The fact of a long period without any significant […]

  • […] him as a sceptic in earlier posts about the ABC, of which he as been the Chairman (see, for example, here). But I wondered who would be the supporter of the orthodox sent in to do battle. So far there have […]

  • […] Act 1983. I have written quite a lot about the ABC over the past few years (for example, here), doing my best to suggest that its practices don’t match its own Code of Practice or its […]

Leave a Reply to PeterE Cancel Reply