Polite difference of opinion

David Flint, the former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Authority, is a charming, courteous man. He′s one of those people you can disagree with without necessarily falling out at the personal level. It′s a phenomenon that may extend to his recent book, Malice in Media Land. It′d be preposterous to suggest everyone will approve of absolutely everything he writes. But you must concede it′s his right to write it.

There are 269 pages of MIML and there′s not space here to canvass every matter dealt with in Flint′s tome. Nor is there much purpose to writing an opinion column about it. The scribe, and very probably numerous other readers, finds himself agreeing with Flint here and disagreeing there. At other times you can find yourself acquiescing, happy to be instructed, neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Some chapters would be regarded as controversial, though – such are the sensitivities of media perception – it′s doubtful if everyone would agree about what′s contentious and what′s not. Many, for example, might contend the craziest thing David Edward Flint did was submit to an interview with John Laws while chairing the authority′s 1999 cash-for-comment inquiry, an inquiry that was probing Laws′s on-air ethics. Flint stood down because of the outcry about his November 1, 1999, conversation with Laws. Those given to indignation said his withdrawal was right and proper. Some, the scribe included, might venture the incident amounted to a great deal of hot air about very little. Others might simply have regarded Flint′s action as foolish and-or naive.

Whatever your view, this, in part, is what MIML says about it: "I was invited to exercise a right of reply to Mr [Bob] Hawke [the former prime minister] on the John Laws program, which I did. I did not see this as a problem. I was not speaking to a witness in private, it would have been the most public conversation. I was not discussing in any way the ABA inquiry. And it was most important to address the same audience. They had heard Mr Hawke not only disagree with me but describe me as a liar [over the consequences of Australia becoming a republic, which Flint opposed]. I was given the opportunity to explain my case. Mr Laws was courteous, but there can be no suggestion he was trying to ingratiate himself. He ended with the observation, hardly welcome to me, that a republic was inevitable."

Flint, 66, has a word to say about newspapers, including this: "It is said all of the Murdoch newspapers around the world supported the coalition of the willing in the Iraq war. This has been repeated so much it is widely believed to be true. It isn′t. It may be true that most of the major News Limited newspapers supported the coalition of the willing in their editorials. But the editorial has limited influence these days. Newspapers now are replete with bylined opinion pieces, often taking different positions. A reader of The Australian could readily have found a wide range of opinions about Iraq."

A general observation about journalists: "It is well established that the majority of journalists are further to the Left in their opinions than the overwhelming majority of Australians, including both Coalition and Labor voters. This is reflected in similar studies in the United States. It is not surprising, then, that a vast proportion of opinion in the media does not reflect the views of the majority."

The scribe has no idea if this is true or not. If a survey has ever been conducted, he wasn′t asked to participate. In the scribe′s experience, journalists are frequently too disorganised even to get themselves on the electoral roll. They′d put that another way. They′d say they were too busy.

It′s difficult to agree with Flint about the Hutton report into the Andrew Gilligan-David Kelly affair or with some of his remarks about ABC television′s Media Watch. Nevertheless, there are public broadcasting observations that should be digested at the BBC, ABC and SBS: "There are certain dangers for public service broadcasting [that] have emerged in recent years. One is the temptation to join the ratings game. That is, it may choose to broadcast programs [that] are on the whole similar to those of commercial broadcasters. It [public broadcasting] may fear that if it doesn′t rate, it will lose influence and funds in areas. A public broadcaster should concentrate on quality programs [that] are complementary to, and not directly competitive with, commercial free-to-air broadcasters ... If public broadcasting is ever perceived to be irretrievably captured [politically] and beyond redemption, it will result in the public broadcaster placing its foolish, delicate neck under the guillotine, which the frustrated will suddenly let fall. This will not be John Howard, for he is not vengeful. In New Zealand, the executioner came from a Labour government." There′s little there that could sensibly be contradicted.

Flint – not in isolation, it should be said – was unhappy at the media′s treatment of the former governor-general, Peter Hollingworth: "The greatest criticism of Dr Hollingworth may well be that he demonstrated naivety in dealing with the media, for which some say he should burn. Actually, his naivety was in believing that if he opened his heart to them [journalists] they would be fair."

Flint′s famous letters to Alan Jones? His judgment that the Packer empire didn′t control Fairfax? There′s not the space here. But it′s in a book (Freedom Publishing) which, whether it pleases or infuriates you, sets a good example. Despite the "malice" in his title, Flint demonstrates it′s possible to put contrary opinions without resorting to unbridled nastiness.