ABC – Questions on Notice

QUESTION 1

Both in response to Question 125 from the October/November Estimates last year and in this last round of Estimates you indicated that the ABC Style Guide was up for review.

1. What internal discussion, process or practice led to this review?
2. What were the dates of the last three revisions or reviews of the Style Guide?
3. What processes will the ABC undertake in reviewing the Style Guide?
4. Will there be community consultation as part of the review?  If so, on what basis will that consultation be done?
5. Will drafts on the new Style Guide be made available for public comment?
6. Will the new Style Guide be made public immediately on completion?
7. Is there any internal documentation relevant to the use of words such as “terror” terrorism” or “terrorist” in the current or proposed Style Guide?  If so, please advise on the nature of such documentation.
8. Will the new Style Guide have the same level of enforcement by ABC management as the current one?

QUESTION 2

Please provide the nature of each breach and resulting disciplinary action that was taken against any particular person in relation to breaches of either the Style Guide or Editorial Policy over the last five years.

QUESTION 3

In your answer to Question 125 from the October/November Estimates, you advised:

The ABC has no policy that involves labelling certain groups as terrorists and others not. The use of the word “terrorist”, as is the case with the use of any other word, is subject to ABC Editorial Policies and driven by the responsibility to report accurately and fairly. As a general indication, it would be expected that, where the facts of a matter clearly point to it being a terrorist act  then it may well be that the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” may be used, particularly where it provides important context and information relevant at the time. However, it is equally possible that the word may not be used, without in any way suggesting that the ABC has somehow made a judgement that the act is not a terrorist act or that the ABC in any way condoned the act. The ABC believes the examples quoted are acceptable uses of language and were not “breaches of the Style Guide”, therefore no disciplinary action was taken.

At Estimates on Monday 13 February you advised:

Senator RONALDSON—I could not agree more. On behalf of many people, I am complaining that the ABC consistently refuses to call one group of terrorists ‘terrorists’.

Mr Balding—The ABC journalists are governed by the board’s editorial policies, and at the moment those policies are very precise in respect of labelling. We have outlined to this committee before what that policy is.

Please advise whether the policies relating to the use of the word “terror” in the current Style Guide are merely a “general indication” of usage that a journalist “may” follow as indicated in your first answer or whether they are prescriptive and “precise” as indicated by your second answer.  Please provide concrete examples in your response.

QUESTION 4

In the last few Estimates, Senators Santoro, Fierravanti-Wells and myself have collectively produced hundreds of instances of use of terms such as “terror” terrorism” or “terrorist” to describe organisation, people and events in places such as South East Asia and London.  As stated before, I believe this labelling to be correct.

We have also provided dozens of examples of organisations such as Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described merely as “militants” or in terms other than “terror” terrorism” or “terrorist.”

For example:

• Ian Henderson, introducing a report on the Hadera bombing for the Victorian evening News bulletin on October 27, referred to "the Palestinian militant group, Islamic Jihad".   Mark Willacy, in his report, referred to "Islamic Jihad, one of the militant groups meant to be observing a truce". Nowhere in the story was any mention of terror, terrorist or terrorism.
• On ABC Radio "AM" (Oct. 7) - Peter Cave announced, "Known for its successful recruitment of suicide bombers, the Palestinian militant group, Hamas"

1. Could you please provide any examples of Islamic Jihad, its actions or its members being described as “terror” terrorism” or “terrorists”.
2. Could you please provide any examples of Hezbollah, its actions or its members being described as “terror” terrorism” or “terrorists”.

QUESTION 5

The ABC has repeatedly insisted that it does not make any geographical distinction between the labelling of different terrorist groups.

Can you analyse your labelling of Islamic Jihad and Jemaah Islamiah and report as to whether you think there is any difference in labelling.  Please provide concrete examples in your response.

QUESTION 6

In the 10 November 2005 edition of the Midday Report, Ros Childs referred to Azahari bin Husin as ‘the master bomb maker of terrorist organisation Jemaah Islamiah’, and ‘the most wanted terrorist in Asia’.

Does this statement represent a view that:

• Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, are not terrorists?; or
• That the Indian Subcontinent is not in Asia?; or
• That Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi are less “wanted” than Azahari bin Husin

QUESTION 7

I would like to refer you to a book published by Melbourne University Publishing entitled The Alfred Deakin Debate: Barons to Bloggers . Details of title at http://www.mup.unimelb.edu.au/catalogue/0-522-85207-6.html

This is a book about media power and the nature of news and opinion within the media world.  Key contributors include ABC Chairman Donald McDonald, publisher Eric Beecher, political journalist Margo Kingston; and AFR journalist and former editor of the Sun-Herald Andrew Clark.

You might note that Donald McDonald has written the preface.

The book has reference to an independent study by RMIT, Roy Morgan, and the Reader. The study seeks to determine how journalists view the media in terms of most bias in Australia. In answer to which media outlet is the most biased,  40% said News Ltd, 25% ABC, 12% said Australian, etc.

That is to say that 25% of Australian JOURNALISTS think that the ABC is the most biased media outlet in Australia and that as a whole, Australian JOURNALISTS rate the ABC as the second most biased media outlet.

How do you respond to the fact that in a survey in a book with a preface by Donald McDonald, journalists think thee ABC is the second most biased media organization in the country?’

QUESTION 8

I would put it to you that wile the ABC may portray a diversity of life styles (e.g. people of different ethnic heritage or sexuality), that there is very little political and social diversity within key areas of ABC programming.

1. Would you acknowledge that by merely taking a view of diversity as being ethnic, gender or sexuality-based that you are in fact creating and politically and socially homogenous culture within the ABC?
2. What measures are in place to ensure a diversity of political views, educational and socio-economic backgrounds?
3. What are you doing to engender actual diversity?
4. How is the ABC confident that it is meeting its obligation of impartiality?
5. Is the ABC asking of itself in a systematic way, ‘How are we impartial? How do we treat certain issues?’ This needs to occur over the range of programs over time. If so, what processes are in place?
6. Is the ABC asking of itself in a systematic way, ‘How can we ensure that we can’t be accused of bias in such circumstances?  Would a disinterested observer think that the ABC takes one editorial position or another over a range of programs over time?’  If so, what processes are in place?

QUESTION 9

What is the basis on which ‘experts’ are chosen to speak on the ABC? How is this done? Are there lists kept? Do they tend to take views like those of the producers and presenters who have chosen them to be informative?

QUESTION 10

I refer you to the following:

On 24 January 2006, The Age:

Why we need a ′biased′ ABC

The ABC has survived despite the appointments of several inadequate general managers - and despite Government bias against it. The organisation can still hold its own in terms of its brilliant current affairs and good news services even though it is underfunded and criticised.

It′s a wonder that with a Liberal-biased board of directors that it has the latitude to report freely at all.

Governments continually condemn the ABC′s left-wing bias and yet without the ABC there would be little account for the Government′s decisions.

It is necessary and essential for the ABC to always be left of centre - whichever Government is in power. To be completely "unbiased" and not be opinionated is to be weak in my terms.

The people of Australia need the ABC and all its multi-functions, and it is a sad reflection that perhaps the ABC is not getting the general managers it deserves. For all his "calming" influence, Russell Balding was not the right man for the job. He is an accountant, a numbers man, and accountants should not be at the head of an expansive, free-thinking organisation. We need men of vision as managing directors, inspired leaders with a grand vision of where the ABC ought to stand in our society.

These days, in particular, when the Liberal Party has a free hand to make terrible blunders, we need an unshackled ABC with enough funds to keep us freely informed.

Gordon Bick (former ABC Four Corners producer), Rosebud

Monday, 13 February 2006,  ECITA Pg. 135

 

Senator RONALDSON—It was probably an unreasonable question to ask you and I will just state the obvious, that it seems a bit surprising. Is Gordon Bick known to any of those at the table, former producer of Four Corners?
Mr Cameron—Before my time in news and current affairs terms.

Monday, 13 February 2006, ECITA Pg. 137

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—I will be coming to that as well. Senator Ronaldson mentioned Gordon Bick. This journalist was employed in a senior role on a flagship current affairs program. He has clearly got a left-wing propagandist view of journalism. Surely, having had an admission by somebody so senior, you cannot sit here and deny that there is no left-wing bias in your organisation.

Mr Balding—Senator, I do not even know the gentleman. It was well before my time; I believe he was employed some time ago. You would be surprised to know, with respect to a number of people who used to work for the ABC, that whenever they write something, they always say ‘former ABC journalist’ or ‘former ABC producer’; they do not say what they are currently doing or what they have done over the last three to five years. Everyone is entitled to their views and opinions. I do not accept that gentleman’s opinions as outlined here tonight. As I have outlined to this committee on a number of occasions, I am definitely of the view that the ABC is not biased. We have a number of processes and procedures in place to put any of those issues on check. There are times—

Monday, 13 February 2006, ECITA Pg. 150

Senator RONALDSON—Some restless soul and insomniac has emailed me and said that Mr Bick worked with the ABC from 1971 until 2001. Have you all collectively dropped him or does someone remember him? I am not going to ask you any questions about it, but someone must remember somebody who worked at the ABC for 30 years and was executive producer of Four Corners.

Mr Cameron—No, he was not described as the executive producer.

Senator RONALDSON—Whatever I have described him as.

Mr Cameron—As a producer.

Senator RONALDSON—Former producer of Four Corners.

Mr Cameron—A producer. Forgive me, Mr Bick, whoever you are, because I have been there for 22 years and I do not know him.

Senator RONALDSON—I think we have got one bitterly disappointed Mr Bick listening to this. ….

The ABC of how not to win friends

Gerard Henderson. Gerard Henderson is the executive director of the Sydney Institute.
7 February 2006, The Sydney Morning Herald
 
If Russell Balding is after more funding, he has a funny way of going about it.

THE ABC′s short march to Canberra in search of extra funding is on again. Last week the public broadcaster released its triennial funding submission to the Federal Government for 2006-09.

The ABC wants an extra $38.4 million over three years. It also hopes the Government will respond favourably to any recommendation for extra money that might be in the Funding Adequacy and Efficiency Review, being undertaken by the consultant KPMG. The ABC′s managing director, Russell Balding, is on record as declaring he is "relatively optimistic" the ABC will get more funding "out of the two reviews".

Last June Balding delivered a speech in which he said that "over the course of 17 years and five triennial funding submissions, the ABC has been repeatedly knocked back". He added that "you could be forgiven for thinking that a telephone in the hands of Russell Crowe gets better treatment than an ABC triennial funding submission". Balding was critical of the attitude to the public broadcaster "of both major parties", specifically the Hawke government, the Keating government and the Howard Government.

Balding seemed to rejoice in the fact that "politicians are not always overburdened with love and affection for the ABC". He asked the self-serving question: "How could we possibly be politically biased when we have managed to offend every prime minister since 1932?"

Conveniently, the answer was provided recently by Gordon Bick, a former ABC TV Four Corners producer. In a recent letter to The Age, Bick wrote: "Governments continually condemn the ABC′s left-wing bias and yet without the ABC there would be little account for the Government′s decisions. It is necessary and essential for the ABC to be always left of centre - whichever government is in power."

In other words, many ABC presenters and producers criticise Labor and the Coalition from the left. Yet Balding, the ABC′s editor-in-chief, seems to believe such a scenario represents balance. It doesn′t. Bob Hawke and Paul Keating understood in their day that the ABC was imbued with a fashionable leftism, of the kind found in many humanities faculties, that is critical of social democrats (i.e., Labor) and political conservatives (i.e., the Coalition) alike. John Howard and Peter Costello recognise the same problem, albeit from a different perspective.

Contrary to the implication in Balding′s speech, the fact that the ABC′s funding requests have been rejected by Labor and the Coalition is an indication not of balance but, rather, of stark management failure. This time around, Balding′s announcement of the ABC′s submission was preceded by the news he will quit by the end of March, some time before his contract expires. In view of the strong emphasis Balding has placed on the dire necessity of the ABC getting extra money, this seems like an undignified cop-out. Decisions about ABC future funding are expected in the May budget.

The only managing director who will have succeeded in the job is the one who can deliver new funding for important and balanced programming. Balding will depart without achieving such an aim. I understand that during his tenure as managing director, he has not had an official meeting with Costello. Yet the Treasurer meets key figures in the community regularly.

Balding′s office will not answer the question as to whether he has made personal representations to Costello. Just imagine what Kerry O′Brien would say if, on The 7.30 Report, a politician failed to answer such a straightforward inquiry. As those involved in the political process recognise, it is hard to get a favourable outcome if the Treasurer and Prime Minister are not onside.

The criticisms made of the ABC by successive governments have been reasonable. Take the Howard Government, for example. The likes of Howard and Costello believe that there should be greater political balance among ABC presenters and producers. Also, the Government wants the ABC to introduce a better complaints procedure. Both requests, if implemented, would lead to an improvement in the ABC. However, both have been resisted by management.

Indeed, senior ABC players seem to have consciously decided to take on the Government. Consider the case of satirist Guy Rundle, an editor of the leftist Arena Magazine. In 2001 Rundle wrote a Quarterly Essay piece titled "The Opportunist: John Howard and the Triumph of Reaction" in which he not only bagged the Prime Minister but attacked Labor as well, declaring that "the forces of reaction now stretch from media magnates and redneck populists to Kim Beazley and John Faulkner".

So what happened to Rundle? Well, last year he was appointed executive producer of ABC Arts. That′s what. Maybe the powers that be at the ABC decided they needed yet more leftists on its payroll.

It′s much the same with the ABC′s complaints procedure. In a long-drawn-out process, the former communications minister Richard Alston had a number of his complaints against the ABC Radio AM program upheld by the Independent Complaints Review Panel and the Australian Broadcasting Authority. Rather than accept the umpire′s decisions, the findings of both bodies were attacked on ABC TV′s Media Watch program. Despite his role as editor-in-chief, Balding did nothing as the public broadcaster′s existing complaints procedures were publicly bagged by his own staff.

Yet the soon-to-resign Balding expects that his advisers and maybe his replacement (who will be decided by the ABC board in the only really significant decision it ever makes) will roll up in Canberra and receive a large load of extra money. Well, it might work. But it hasn′t in the past. The ABC is most likely to receive the funding it needs after, and if, it reforms itself.

The Editor
West Australian

Dear Editor

Gerard Henderson says (7/2/06) "...the Government wants the ABC to introduce a better complaints procedure..." and that this necessary reform has been "...resisted by management...". This is nonsense.

Four years ago the ABC Board and management implemented a series of reforms to its corporate governance processes including significant enhancements to the ABC′s complaints handling system. We took complaints handling away from the program makers and established ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs and a separate Complaints Review Executive. In mid 2005 we reformed the Independent Complaints Review Panel. The ABC′s complaints handling system is without peer within the Australian media industry.

I am not sure what regular contact Mr Henderson has with senior figures in the Federal Government but he is wrong about their attitude to the very substantial and effective complaints handling reforms instituted by the ABC.

Mr Henderson takes almost 1000 words to demean the ABC and its Triennial Funding Submission to Government. Not one word was devoted to the substance of the submission, which calls for increased resources in order to position the ABC to meet the challenges of the digital age, expand regional services, and improve levels of Australian content on television.

Contrary to Mr Henderson′s assertions, the ABC has secured additional funding from the Government in recent years, including: an additional $4.2million per annum for television acquisitions; the renewal of the National Interest Initiatives program costing $18 million per annum and the renewal of the ABC′s Asia Pacific international television service contract.

I remain confident that the Government will give serious consideration to the ABC′s funding submission and assess it on its merits.

Yours sincerely

Russell Balding
Managing Director

In light of:

• Mr Bick’s letter
• Mr Henderson’s article citing Mr Bick
• Mr Balding’s response to Mr Henderson’s article
• References to Mr Bick at Estimates

Can you please advise:

1. What positions were held by Mr Bick at the ABC over which years?
2. What positions were held by Mr Cameron at the ABC over which years?
3. How it was that Mr Balding and Mr Cameron were unaware of Mr Bick, even though Mr Balding had written a letter to West Australian refuting an article by Mr Henderson which quoted Mr Bick only days beforehand?
4. Do Mr Bick’s views reflect the standard approach and thinking among News and Current Affairs staff at the ABC?
5. If not, what steps are management taking to make it clear that Mr. Bick’s stated approach is not acceptable?