The ABC’s Anti-Israel Obsession

Australia’s national broadcaster is supposed to belong to all Australians.

The charter of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is clear. It is meant to provide accurate, impartial and balanced reporting. Australians fund it through their taxes precisely because it is supposed to rise above ideology, activism and political tribalism.

But on the issue of Israel and the Middle East, a growing number of Australians no longer believe the ABC is even trying.

The detailed ABC Misinformation Report submitted to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion paints a deeply disturbing picture of a public broadcaster that has abandoned neutrality and instead amplified narratives that consistently demonise Israel while minimising, excusing or contextualising the barbarity of Hamas. (The Jerusalem Post)

The report alleges repeated failures in editorial balance, selective sourcing, emotionally loaded language, and the uncritical repetition of claims originating from Hamas-controlled sources. It argues that this coverage has not merely distorted public understanding of the conflict, but has actively contributed to the toxic rise of antisemitism now spreading across Australia. (The Jerusalem Post)

That accusation should terrify anyone who still values social cohesion in this country.

This is not a debate about whether Israel should be immune from criticism. Democracies should always be open to scrutiny. Israel itself has one of the most vigorous internal media and political debates on earth.

The issue is whether Australia’s taxpayer-funded broadcaster has applied the same standards consistently and honestly.

The evidence increasingly suggests it has not.

The ABC has been accused of framing Israel almost exclusively through the lens of oppression, occupation and military power, while often reducing Hamas terrorism to “militancy”, “resistance” or “conflict”. The moral asymmetry is impossible to ignore.

After the atrocities of October 7, the civilised world should have had absolute clarity about what Hamas represents. The murder, torture, rape and kidnapping of civilians was not “context”. It was evil.

Yet large sections of the media class appeared more interested in explaining Hamas than condemning it.

That matters because media narratives shape public attitudes.

When audiences are relentlessly fed a simplified morality play in which Israel is portrayed as uniquely malevolent, it is hardly surprising that hostility toward Jews rises as well. The line between anti-Israel obsession and antisemitism is often crossed, especially when Jews in Australia are blamed, harassed or targeted for events occurring thousands of kilometres away.

Australia has now seen exactly where this poisonous atmosphere can lead.

The horrific terrorist attack at Bondi only months ago shocked the nation and forced Australians to confront a frightening reality: antisemitism is no longer a fringe phenomenon. It is becoming normalised. (New York Post)

The Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was established in direct response to that growing crisis. Evidence presented to the inquiry has included testimony from Jewish Australians who are now afraid to openly display their identity in public. (ABC News)

Against that backdrop, scrutiny of the ABC is not only legitimate — it is essential.

A public broadcaster has enormous power. With that power comes responsibility.

If a privately owned activist outlet wants to campaign on ideological grounds, readers at least know what they are buying. But the ABC is different. It carries the authority and legitimacy of a national institution funded by every Australian taxpayer regardless of political belief.

That makes editorial bias far more dangerous.

Recent controversies only deepen the concern. The ABC and SBS have resisted adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism used by the Royal Commission, claiming concerns about editorial independence. (The Guardian) Critics argue this reluctance reflects a deeper institutional unwillingness to confront how anti-Israel rhetoric can slide into outright antisemitism.

Meanwhile, growing calls are emerging for the Royal Commission to directly investigate alleged bias within the ABC and SBS themselves. (The Australian)

Frankly, it is hard to argue against that.

Australians deserve journalism, not activism disguised as journalism.

They deserve reporting that distinguishes between democratic self-defence and terrorism.

They deserve context that includes the realities of Hamas extremism, Iranian influence, hostage-taking and the deliberate use of civilians as human shields.

Most of all, Jewish Australians deserve to know that the institutions funded by their own taxes are not helping to inflame the hatred now directed at their communities.

The ABC does not have to support Israel.

But it absolutely does have to report fairly.

Right now, too many Australians no longer believe it does.

Our ABC's Sickening Bias

In a recent segment provocatively titled “‘Sickening’: Extremists ‘poison’ immigration debate as ABC shows media bias,” Sky News commentator Chris Kenny unleashes a scathing critique of the ABC’s coverage—charging that the national broadcaster is not just biased, but selectively complicit in framing the immigration debate around extremism.

Kenny’s Core Arguments

1. Immigration Debate Hijacked, But Coverage Lets It Ride
   Kenny asserts that extremists—particularly neo-Nazi elements—have managed to "hijack" the discourse around immigration policy. He argues that, instead of calling out these fringe elements, the ABC presents an unbalanced narrative, failing to spotlight the toxic influence of radical voices. In his view, the broadcaster’s coverage sanitises or obfuscates the real threat posed by such groups.

2. Relentless “Green-Left” Bias
   Kenny accuses the ABC of maintaining a persistent “green left bias” in its reporting—regularly flouting its own editorial charter to favor progressive perspectives.

3. Selective Scrutiny in Political Coverage
   He praises Opposition Leader Peter Dutton for calling out the ABC’s asymmetrical approach. The broadcaster’s tough questioning, he says, rarely targets left-leaning figures, exposing its one-sided journalistic culture.

4. Misinforming on the Middle East
   Kenny further brands the ABC’s Middle East reporting as “terrible stuff,” contending that it misinforms Australians about the nuanced complexities of the region.

The ABC’s Charter – and the Cost of Ignoring It

The ABC’s legislated charter demands impartiality. By airing all sides of a debate, the national broadcaster should give Australians the chance to hear competing views and make their own judgments. That’s the role of a taxpayer-funded institution in a democracy.

Yet, in practice, the ABC’s coverage—especially of the Israel–Hamas conflict—has strayed from this mission. Its bias has emboldened anti-Israel demonstrators, encouraging repeated, disruptive protests across major cities. Large numbers of these rallies have drawn on immigrant communities from the Middle East, a reality now fuelling broader tensions.

As Australians watch these demonstrations escalate, many have begun staging counter-protests of their own. What began as selective bias in coverage has spiralled into something larger: a sense of division, suspicion, and cultural unease.

In effect, the ABC has helped create the very divisions it ought to be healing. Instead of providing balanced information to strengthen public understanding, its reporting has fed polarisation.

Why This Matters

Kenny’s critique goes beyond mere nit-picking of a media outlet. His warning is about trust, responsibility, and the consequences of bias in institutions designed to serve all Australians. When a public broadcaster privileges one perspective, it fails not just in journalism but in democracy itself.

The ABC’s charter isn’t optional. If faithfully followed, it would protect against precisely the kind of division now playing out. By straying from it, the broadcaster hasn’t just skewed the news—it has, however unintentionally, become a player in the social fractures shaping Australia today.

Here is Chris Kenny's report ;-

Don't Panic!

I happened to catch the last few minutes of the ABC's QandA last night. The topic at the time was Climate change. It was the usual one-sided ABC panel with the usual one-sided audience clamoring for immediate action against carbon pollution. It is the greatest "moral challenge of our time", "without real action today we are facing climate disaster!" the various calls coming across as rather shrill.

Of course there was the sacrificial token representative of the 'dark' side. In this case it was James Paterson a rather youthful Victorian Liberal Senator. During the few minutes I watched he acquitted himself well, responding with commendable equanimity in the clearly hostile atmosphere.

I was struck by the passion of the climate change advocates, the foam-in-the-mouth, frothy passion, the no-argument-or-discussion-is-allowed passion, the disgust-for-anyone-wanting-to-question passion.

These are without doubt intelligent people, who on any other subject would listen to the information, seek alternate views, apply some filters as to the veracity of the information and then come to a balanced judgement. But it seems that with Climate change it is different. Yes it is a cliche to call it a religion, but I do recall from decades past I did note the same visceral passions in the occasional discussions on religion.

As I have noted in my earlier posts, my own beliefs have evolved over the past year. (See the Climate Change page for a list of my posts.) I have been swayed from the most foreboding predictions of "runaway" climate change by just a few observations.

From http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

• The Earth's average temperature has been more than 5C degrees higher than today and yet it supported a rich biodiversity.  For example, during the Jurassic period the average temperature of the Earth was ~25C. This is a full 10C degrees higher than today. Yet during the Jurassic life was abundant. So what is so special about a 2 degree rise from the current average of ~15C. 

• CO2 concentration has been much higher than today and yet the Earth supported abundant animal life. Again during the Jurassic CO2 concentration rose to >2500 ppm yet supported life. 

• The historical record shows no evidence of a "tipping point". The geological record shows a wide variation of temperatures and CO2 concentrations (see Graphic above). Yet there is no evidence that there is a "Tipping point" whereby if the CO2 concentration exceeds some threshold there is a runaway temperature increase. On the contrary the geological record shows cyclical changes in temperature and CO2 concentration with most temperature higher than today. 

So lets all calm down. Yes, there is global warming. The earth has been in a steady warming period after the mini-ice age of the early 17th century. Yes, it is probable, but not certain, that man made emissions of CO2 are contributing to this warming. It is possible, but again not certain, that if our civilization can reduce its emissions, we could mitigate some of the temperature increase. Indeed it may even be worth doing this in a sensible, equitable and gradual process. After all I am all for sustainability.

But there is no need to overreact. The world will not end in a ball of fire if we fail to control our emissions. Planet earth will not turn into Venus if we fail to close brown coal power stations in Victoria next year. Nor indeed can any of our virtue-signaling state governments on their own make any measurable impact on the Earth's temperature. Neither can all of Australia. It requires a coordinated world effort to make even an iota of difference. Will such a coordinated effort occur? We are yet to see.

My expectation is that our significant investment in energy research will generate breakthrough technologies. Technologies that provide abundant base-load energy at lower cost than fossil fuels. When that happens the world will quickly shut down fossil fuel power stations without any coaxing.

We do have time. Even if the world carries on business-as-usual our civilization will survive a 3 degree increase in temperature and a doubling of CO2 concentration. Indeed it would be a warmer wetter and greener world, perhaps more pleasant that today's. 

QandA's shrill calls for no-holds-barred-urgent-action remind me of the advice printed on the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" , "Don't Panic!"

24-7 but barely skin deep

With an ever increasing stream of News, especially in the lead up to the next election, our media are happy. There is no shortage of material to feed the 24-7 news cycle monster. There is an unprecedented range of serious issues to cover; -

• Islamic Terrorism
• Geopolitical power tremors; - rise of Russia and China to challenge the 'status quo"
• Migration and asylum seekers
• Climate change
• US presidential elections
• Senate reform legislation
• Our economic challenges - deficits and budgets
• Coping with growth in our cities
• Developing the North
• Indigenous Affairs
• Education and Health
• The federal election

Yet of all these serious issues the one that seems to take a disproportionate time is the machinations of the politicians. Our media commentators are sidetracked into the spurious, the tawdry, the scuttlebutt. Revision after revision of past elections and PMs. A book on Abbott by Savva held attention of every media outlet for weeks. Last week it was about Abbott Turnbull relationship and whether Scott Morrison was 'in' or 'out' of the 'inner circle'. All this to the neglect of in-depth analysis.

I accept that these personality politics are a valid topic for commentary and analysis. They are a great source of merriment and titillation for the journos and listeners alike. So coverage is relevant. But really !! How much time should be spent on the gossip as opposed to the serious?

This last week coverage of the Abbott 'intervention' and the Morrison -Turnbull relationship were incessant on virtually every news and political medium. It seems the journos 'fiddle while Rome burns'.

Where is the in-depth analysis?

Dominated by these distractions our 24-7 media makes no time for the real work of journalists to provide both broad and comprehensive coverage of topics relevant to society. There are many relevant topics that are begging for attention (eg see the dot points above). Let me also suggest a few more specific subjects that deserve scrutiny; -

• What is the relationship between Educational Outcomes and investment?
• What is the underlying cause of aboriginal disadvantage ?
• What should be the size of government? 
• What is 'Fair' when it comes to economic matters?
• Is there too much legislation? 
• What is the proper role of government in Education? 
• How much should a modern government spend on Health?
• Where is the line between personal and state responsibility?
• Is there a case against foreign ownership? 
• How to fight corruption?
• Should there be public funding for elections?

Each of these question is relevant to our daily lives. Yet the news media pay scant attention to them.

Must present all viewpoints

These questions and many like them can be covered in many different media formats. But to inform the public any coverage must include all opposing viewpoints. Too often our media regards analysis as simply presenting one side of the story, often backed up by an 'expert'. A contrarian view is often not covered at all. Or even when it is, it is presented in unequal light through 'tricks of the trade', the order in which arguments are presented, being given unequal time, the words, tone and body language of the presenter and so on. That is simply advocacy and not journalism. The ABC has been particularly guilty of this approach, but it is really quite widespread on all our political commentary programs.

My preference is to always present the topic in general terms by a journalist then advocates of each side of the argument face each other and present their views. It is only when a proposition is tested by direct confrontation with its opposite that the viewer starts to appreciate the complexities and nuances in an issue. 

This format has been used very successfully on America's PBS Newshour program where topics are invariably covered both in depth and without bias by presenting both sides of an argument and allowing the adherents to face each other in debate. I should also mention that the interaction of all the journalists is exemplary. No aggressive tone or body language, no interruptions at all, but respectable discourse. (see Raising the standard of Australian Journalism )

Code of Ethics

To a great extent the success of the PBS Newshour program reflects the code of ethics it sets as a benchmark for all reporting on the program (see below).

I could think of no better starting point for our own Australian media!

Some media accepting some blame

Is hell freezing over? Are pigs taking to the sky? Perhaps not, but I do seem to detect a whiff of mea- culpa from the media. There is at least partial acceptance that media has been a cause of our political instability.

First it was Niki Sava asking the question "is the system broken?", and offering a stern denial (see The Australian, Sep 19, 2015, Yes, we’re not a banana republic, and no, the system ain’t broke).

Then came Paul Kelly, with his forthright, but gentlemanly rebuttal of Sava (see The Australian, Sep 23 2015, Negative politics the biggest enemy of reform). Yes, our political system is broken. Yes, this is having a negative impact on our society. By our media's focus on the negatives our politicians are busy fighting fires and as a consequence have deferred reform for virtually a decade. Yes, the media are at least partially at fault, by their unedifying emphasis on the trivial while ignoring the significant.

Today, we have Troy Bramston on the same topic and building on Kelly's arguments (see The Australian, Sep 28,2015, Revolving-door PMs not healthy for the nation).

"Clearly, we have a problem. As Paul Kelly wrote last week, we have had a revolving-door prime ministership, countless ministers and no substantial economic reforms since 2004. As a result, our living standards are declining. Poor performing leaders are always going to be vulnerable but this level of instability is affecting our economy and society." 
Troy Bramston, Revolving-door PMs not healthy for the nation

While Troy steers a kindly middle of the road, in the main, he has put forward a couple of suggestions which could alleviate the problem. He notes that there are too many polls, that parliamentary terms should be increased and that the Liberal party could take a leaf from the ALP and change the rules relating to party spills. These are constructive contributions that could provide greater stability. Although I don't know how you could prevent a pollster from producing a poll.

But as the others before him, the focus on the media is superficial. There is no attempt at identifying the media culture that is the root cause of the negative reporting. The culture that treats the trivial on equal terms as the substantial, the culture that seeks out foibles and slip ups. The culture that looks for gotcha moments, with aggressive interviewing tactics. The culture that worships moments of anguish by interview victims.

I have written about this before (see Interviewing:boxing or surgery?, Mischievous media magnifies mayhem, Raising the standard of public broadcasting ) I guess it is one of my 'bug-bears'.
I believe our media culture has a vital role in our society. It has a direct impact on our political and economic system, as evidenced by the political instability now acknowledged by Kelly and Bramston.

However its influence goes beyond that. Our media enters our homes, and becomes part of our daily life. Whether they intend it or not, our media set an example for all our behaviour. How we interact with our colleagues, our friends, or the man in the street. By their interactions on the radio and our TV screens we learn that it is okay to shout down those with whom we disagree. It is ok to laugh at others' discomfort. It is okay to ridicule and make fun of foibles.

But it isn't. And I am sure that the Leigh Sales's, Emma Albericis and the various Jones's of our media, indeed all our commentators, do not believe that their behaviour should be taken into our daily lives. I am sure they believe they are doing their professional duty as journalists. Even if they interrupt or talk over the interviewee, or ask questions with aggression and malice, or indeed focus on the trivial, such as winks or flags, they believe these behaviours are justified in the quest for truth. Their role as noble guardians of our society somehow justifies such transgressions of respectful discourse. Alas these are but empty rationalisations. There are many examples where journalists, despite their common role as 'noble guardians', manage to maintain higher standards than many in our media (see Raising the standard of public broadcasting).

I suggest, however, our journalists, particularly our radio and TV presenters, should think more about their audience. They should visualise their audience as impressionable youngsters or indeed their own children. Is this the way they would want their children to behave, or indeed is this the way they would want their children to see them behave? I suggest this perspective may encourage them to tone down and fulfil their role with greater professionalism.

Interviewing:Boxing or Surgery?

(This is an excerpt from earlier post titled "Raising the standard of public broadcasting" . I have posted it in response to some Twitter interaction.)

Journalistic aggression

With all the encouragement from their supporters, and indeed their colleagues, it is not surprising that many a journalist has taken taken a pugnacious stance against those 'on the other side'. Interviewing is perceived by many a journalist, as a 'blood sport'. Journos and their audience each baying for the 'gotcha moment', seeking that telling bead of sweat on the brow, or even the odd broken glass. These are hailed as measures of success and receive general acclaim from journalists and the twitterati alike. 

Indeed some of these aggressive interviews have become icons of reportage, heralded long after their normal use-by date. Consider the Alberici interview on Lateline with the Hizb ut Tahrir representative, or Sarah Ferguson's interview on ABC 730 report with Joe Hockey on budget night.

Boxing or Surgery?

I have always found this rather distasteful for a couple of reasons. Primarily, our journalists, are the first line of our public discourse, a demonstration of how professionals deal with each other even when they may have differing views. By their large audience our media set the standard for all our behaviour. Aggressive questioning, clearly intended to attack the individual, interrupting them while they are talking, talking over them, or signs of enjoyment of another's discomfort, does not set a good example.  It is not how we want people to treat each other.

And secondly, it is also counter-productive.When a journalist takes an aggressive attitude, the interviewee, usually a politician, will 'clam up'. When they reluctantly appear for battle, they become guarded, mechanical, limiting their discourse and offering less information. Often they will avoid the interviewer altogether. The consequence is we are all the losers.

Journalism, professional journalism, should be about content not about style. The professional journalist should be more surgeon than boxer. With good knowledge of the topic and a quick wit they should be able to cut through the defensive shields of even the most capable politician. 

If a politician refuses to answer a question, that is his prerogative. You can ask a couple of times, but if he doesn't answer he has certainly demonstrated his unwillingness to do so, and he has shown this to the whole viewing audience. If a politician makes long-winded answers and you cannot get your questions in, that is also his prerogative. Again he has demonstrated his unwillingness to converse, in other than sloganese, to the viewing public.

PBS Newshour as the paragon

Whereas 'Gotcha journalism has become fashionable, especially on our public broadcaster, great journalists rarely have had to resort to overt emotions or aggressive questioning. The Frost/Nixon interviews come immediately to mind, but there are many others.

PBS Newshour, televised each day on SBS is the template I wish would be followed by all our Australian news media, and especially our public broadcaster. Its success is founded on the editorial guidelines (see table below) created by Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, the creators of the program.

PBS Newhour Editorial guidelines

(also called MacNeil / Lehrer journalism.)

"Do nothing I cannot defend."

"Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me."

"Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

"Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am."

"Assume the same about all people on whom I report."

"Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise."

"Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything."

"Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions."

"No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously."

"And finally, I am not in the entertainment business."

Some characteristics stand out; -

• Strong debate on topics of political and general interest
• all journalists top of their game ( regular presenters include Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, Hari Sreenivasan, Margaret Warner, Jeffrey Brown, Paul Solman
• all interviews focused on a topic, interviewers always polite, questions however are sharpened to clearly highlight every aspects of the topic
• most interviews have the journalist as an independent moderator with two interviewees representing each side of the argument

This last point is perhaps the most pertinent and should be used more often in Australia.

SkyNews does do this quite often, but could do more. Our ABC mostly fails to do this. If the ABC went out of its way to ensure both sides of an argument were presented by articulate and knowledgeable advocates, a lot of the criticism of the ABC for bias, would be dissipated.

How do we fare?

How do I rate our Australian networks and shows? Let me stick my neck out. No doubt you will tell me where you disagree.

As far as networks are concerned I think PBS Newshour is Gold, SkyNews is Silver and our own ABC is bronze.

With regard to News debate I believe SkyNews' Sunday Agenda comes closest to the high quality professional interviewing of the PBS Newshour. A straightforward panel discussion with pollies and journos asking questions, sometimes very probing questions, and sufficient time to subvert the 'pollie-waffle' escape.

SBS' Dateline and Four Corners do a creditable job on specific topics, but often strongly advocate for one side of an argument without adequately presenting the alternate view.

These are weekly programs, the dailies don't fare as well. Sky News' PM Agenda, ABC's AM and PM radio prgrams do a creditable job. Sky's PM Agenda goes out of it s way to have two advocates in debate format. ABC's 730 Report and Lateline rarely do this and often take adversarial, and patronising approach in their interviews.

I know I have left many out, but these are my regulars, and prefer not to comment on those I do not follow.


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

ABC, A Biased Commentator

In days of Yore all was well

I have been a viewer and listener of our ABC for more decades than I care to remember. My earliest recollections are of an organisation with a quiet, professional and detached tone. It had universal admiration from those, admittedly relatively small proportion of the population, who viewed and listened. I too was an advocate, and would readily defend its critics.

The general criticism at the time was that it was not for everyone. That it catered for only a small proportion of Australians, that its audience reach was inadequate for the cost and so on. Despite these criticisms it was held in high regard as a professional broadcasting organisation. While politicians would on occasions attack some aspect of a report that was not in their favour, Australians of all political persuasions accepted the ABC provided a balanced view on political subjects. It earned the accolade 'Auntie', as if reflecting the wise counsel of a near relative.

Times have changed

Alas, those days seem so long ago. Sometime over the past decade, or two, this respect for 'Auntie', as an unbiased presenter and commentator, has been sadly tarnished. For many longer term viewers it is all too apparent that the organisation has not maintained its own professional code for unbiased reporting.

Journalists as a group are already left-leaning, but the current 'crop' employed by the ABC are even more so. As a consequence there is a left-of-centre bias evident in many of its political programs and even the News. Sometimes it is overt, but more often it is nuanced. It can be simply selecting stories which present only the Leftist view of an argument, or displaying personal bias by an aggressive tone or  disdainful expression.There are many many examples, that I could cite. Just consider the relatively recent decision to air a series of interviews with Keating and failing to do the same for Albrechtsen's "John Howard Defined" even when the latter was offered to the ABC. How can you justify one and not the other?

Not suprisingly, in recent years there have been many accusations of bias leveled at the ABC. Here are just a few -

SMH - "Sarah Ferguson breached ABC bias guidelines"
IPA - "Independent report reveals ABC biased against fossil fuels"
JoNova - "Three times as many Australians think the ABC has a pro-Labor bias"

The ABC counters these with its 'complaints statistics', indicating that it receives about the same number of complaints that it is too 'right-leaning' as 'left-leaning'. However with the advent of Sky News pay TV channels, with its 'right-leaning' political and news broadcasts, the ABC's right-leaning audience has switched channels, leaving the remaining 10% of Australians who still watch the ABC generally left-of-centre. So its complaints statistics only speak for its left-of centre audience, and its use as a defence against bias is fallacious.

What can the ABC board do to counter bias?

Despite a professional code of ethics that mandates balanced reporting, our public broadcaster, our ABC, does not have one 'right-of-centre', 'conservative', host in any of its many political and news programs.

How can this encourage open debate of left-right politics? How can this represent a society that, by its vote in elections, is roughly equally divided between a left and right-leaning electorate?

It cannot and ABC's management and its board of directors, is failing in its duty to Australian society. It is also failing its duty as professional journalists to give fair and equal voice to all points of view and to allow arguments to stand on their merits.

I call on the ABC board to take the first step. Appoint a right leaning host to a political program. There are many who would do an admirable job; Janet Albrechtsen, Paul Murray, Chris Kenny, Andrew Bolt, Gerard Henderson, to name a few regulars from SkyNews.

You are not serving Australia by failing to appoint journalists who would provide balance to the organisation. Come on, what would you lose?


Copyright(C)2015 Grappy's Soap Box, all rights reserved

Raising the standard of public broadcasting

I very recently joined the 'Twittersphere', perhaps rather later than many. It is a fascinating and  chaotic rabble of mostly anonymous individuals and organisations, persistently launching their modest 140 characters into the ether.  Each directed towards a target or targets be they individuals or topics of interest. Each seeking attention, a mere microsecond of focus from fellow travellers to anoint their submission with a 'favourite', or a 're-tweet', or, rarely, a direct response. I guess I don't need to tell you, as most of you are more experienced than I. I still have my training wheels, yet I am fascinated and must admit somewhat hooked. I can see in the ebb and flow of the commentary, the full range of human emotions on open display.

With my inclination towards political commentary I have spent most of my Twitter time on the regular news shows like ABC's 730 Report and Lateline, and Sky News' PM Agenda and Paul Murray Live. The many followers of these shows exhibit great passion in their tweets, as if they were ringside in some gladiatorial event. Each show has its supporters; the ABC's mainly left of centre and Sky's mainly right. But they share the same lust for blood. Invariably when the presenter is interviewing someone 'from the other side', there are calls for tougher questions, some name-calling of the interviewee and eventually name-calling of the interviewer.

Consider  these examples;

.....

21/11/2014 12:37 pm  .... 'Does @leighsales have Alzheimer's? Bring back @FergusonNews to @abc730 I say

.....

20/11/2014 10:20 pm Bring back Sarah Ferguson to #abc730 As soon as possible @leighsales too kind to LNP Pollies .....

.......

18/11/2014 5:51 pm David is keeping his options open to get a job on #THEIRabc #pmagenda Tell us they aren't BIASED. Go on.. dare ya.

......

18/11/2014 4:56 pm the poll went down because the arsole media were blathering about a russian invasion remember that @David_Speers #pmagenda

Journalistic aggression

With all the encouragement from their supporters, and indeed their colleagues, it is not surprising that many a journalist has taken taken a pugnacious stance against those 'on the other side'. Interviewing is perceived by many a journalist, as a 'blood sport'. Journos and their audience each baying for the 'gotcha moment', seeking that telling bead of sweat on the brow, or even the odd broken glass. These are hailed as a measures of success and receive general acclaim from journalists and the twitterati alike. 

Indeed some of these aggressive interviews have become icons of reportage, heralded long after their normal use-by date. Consider the Alberici interview on Lateline with the Hizb ut Tahrir representative, or Sarah Ferguson's interview on ABC 730 report with Joe Hockey on budget night.

Boxing or Surgery?

I have always found this rather distasteful for a couple of reasons. Primarily, our journalists, are the first line of our public discourse, a demonstration of how professionals deal with each other even when they may have differing views. By their large audience our media set the standard for all our behaviour. Aggressive questioning, clearly intended to attack the individual, interrupting them while they are talking, talking over them, or signs of enjoyment of another's discomfort, does not set a good example.  It is not how we want people to treat each other.

And secondly, it is also counter-productive.When a journalist takes an aggressive attitude, the interviewee, usually a politician will 'clam up'. When they reluctantly appear for battle, they become guarded, mechanical, limiting their discourse and offering less information. Often they will avoid the interviewer altogether. The consequence is we are all the losers.

Journalism, professional journalism should be about content not about style. The professional journalist should be more surgeon than boxer. With good knowledge of the topic and a quick wit they should be able to cut through the defensive shields of even the most capable politician. 

If a politician refuses to answer a question, that is his prerogative. You can ask a couple of times, but if he doesn't answer he has certainly demonstrated his unwillingness to do so, and he has shown this to the whole viewing audience. If a politician makes long-winded answers and you cannot get your questions in , that is also his prerogative. Again he has demonstrated his unwillingness to converse, in other than sloganese, to the viewing public.

PBS Newshour as the paragon

Whereas 'Gotcha journalism has become fashionable, especially on our public broadcaster, great journalists rarely have had to resort to overt emotions or aggressive questioning. The Frost/Nixon interviews come immediately to mind, but there are many others.

PBS Newshour, televised each day on SBS is the template I wish would be followed by all our Australian news media, and especially our public broadcaster. Its success is founded on the editorial guidelines (see table below) created by Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, the creators of the program.

PBS Newhour Editorial guidelines

(also called MacNeil / Lehrer journalism.)

"Do nothing I cannot defend."

"Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me."

"Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story."

"Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am."

"Assume the same about all people on whom I report."

"Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise."

"Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything."

"Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions."

"No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously."

"And finally, I am not in the entertainment business."

Some characteristics stand out; -

• Strong debate on topics of political and general interest
• all journalists top of their game ( regular presenters include Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, Hari Sreenivasan, Margaret Warner, Jeffrey Brown, Paul Solman
• all interviews focussed on a topic, interviewers always polite, questions however are sharpened to clearly display all aspects of the the topic
• most interviews have the journalist as an independent moderator with two interviewees representing each side of the argument

This last point is perhaps the most pertinent and should be used more often in Australia.

SkyNews does do this quite often, but could do more. Our ABC mostly fails to do this. If the ABC went out of its way to ensure both sides of an argument were presented by articulate and knowledgeable advocates, a lot of the criticism of the ABC for bias, would be dissipated.

How do we fare?

How do I rate our Australian networks and shows? Let me stick my neck out. No doubt you will tell me where you disagree.

As far as networks are concerned I think PBS Newshour is Gold, SkyNews is Silver and our own ABC is bronze.

With regard to News debate I believe SkyNews' Sunday Agenda comes closest to the high quality professional interviewing of the PBS Newshour. A straightforward panel discussion with pollies and journos asking questions, sometimes very probing questions, and sufficient time to subvert the 'pollie-waffle' escape.

SBS' Dateline and Four Corners do a creditable job on specific topics, but often strongly advocate for one side of an argument without adequately presenting the alternate view.

These are weekly programs, the dailies don't fare as well. Sky News' PM Agenda, ABC's AM and PM radio prgrams do a creditable job. Sky's PM Agenda goes out of it s way to have two advocates in debate format. ABC's 730 Report and Lateline rarely do this and often take adversarial, and patronising approach in their interviews.

I know I have left many out, but these are my regulars, and prefer not to comment on those I do not follow.