🚀 go-pugleaf

G'day Graham,

gcairns@mtpost.apana.org.au (Graham Cairns) wrote:

>I am willing to concede that the _ABC TV CURRENT AFFAIRS_ coverage of 
>Victorian politics may be percieved to be biased .. but don't forget that
>
>(a) we are talking TV Current Affairs, not the entire ABC
>(b) there is a need for some balance of the Hair-oil Scum's coverage

I'm willing to agree with your decision to assign lower expectations
to current affairs programs on both the ABC and the commercial
stations.  They're both relatively pathetic.

That said, the ABC defenders generally point to the commercial
networks' current affairs shows as examples of their journalistic
enterprises.  If current affairs shows are examples of journalism,
then this should be true for all networks.

Regarding balance, I'd suggest that the Age provides enough
anti-Kennett coverage to go around.

Besides, since ABC defenders here in Melbourne are often Age readers
as well, I've noticed that the Age's firm allegiance to progressive
ideals doesn't seem to be tarnished by its advertising.  That is, much
of its politics and columnists are progressive, so I question the
degree to which advertising automatically corrupts a media
organisation.

>>>Another interesting aspect is that many of the ABC presenters used to
>>>be on the staff of Labor politicians.  For example, it's my
>>>understanding that Kerry O'Brien used to work for Whitlam and the
>>>chief national political reporter used to work for Hawke.  Do you know
>>>if this is true?
>
>Nope.
>
>AFAIK, O'Brien was a former Whitlam staffer. However, McKew is not a former
>Hawke staffer .. although she is a partner of a senior ALP official.

Actually, I wasn't think of Maxine McKew -- I couldn't remember Jack
Cassidy's name (if that's the person I'm thinking of -- in his
fifties, large-framed, without glasses).  It's my understanding that
he used to be on Hawke's staff.

>But so what? I'm a former (non-Labor) party candidate, I've worked with ABC
>staff who were Media secretaries to coalition MPs, etc.
>
>All that proves is that people who cover political events have a deep and 
>abiding passion for the political process. And this is a bad thing?

The point was that the ABC is said to be unbiased, etc.  It would seem
logical that a person who was a politician's staff member (and
therefore would appear to have an open allegiance to a political
party) would be more open to one side of an argument.

Again, the ABC seems to be trying to have it both ways.  On one hand,
it claims to be independent and presents both sides of issues
(although it's been acknowledged in this discussion that it doesn't).
On the other hand, it hires ex-staffers to fill high-profile presenter
roles and doesn't appear to regularly inform the viewers of their
former participation in the political process.

>My direct experience is with Radio News (we get a copy of all stories filed
>by cap-city newsrooms) and it would appear, to me, that the 'pro-gun' lobby
>gets equal time (if not a tad more, as they tend to be more vocal). 

If you have the statistics on this, I'll defer to your better
knowledge on the subject.

>>>4. Commercial sponsorship of ABC programs (which I understand which
>>>   was broken by the Sunday program)
>
>No, it was actually broken by John Millard, who had his career given a 
>lateral arabesque as a result.

Broken or leaked?  Did Millard talk about the sponsorship on the ABC
or did he provide the information to one of the commercial stations?

>>>Would you mind expanding on this view?  How is the ABC vital to
>>>democracy?  If we take the extreme case and eliminate the ABC, how
>>>would democracy be affected?
>
>Without the ABC, the electronic media in this country would be dominated 
>by a small cartel of media owners for whom the bottom line is, and should 
>be, profit.

At present, the print media in this country appears to be equally
"dominated", but there appears to be a fair degree of balanced
political coverage.  For example, the Herald-Sun focussed on the
shortcomings of Kirner and the Age focussed on Kennett.  It's
difficult to imagine a negative story about the Liberals that the Age
would hesitate to run for fear of upsetting its advertisers.

>If it profits them to kow-tow to a political leader (cf the Herald-Sun &
>Jeff Kennett) they will do so.

I shall not forget the ABC kow-towing to Kirner in the dying days of
her government.  To watch Mary Delahunty -shamelessly- pushing
Kirner's line in the last month was both amusing and sickening.  The
local ABC political coverage didn't even pretend to provide balance.

Of course, then it feigned outrage when Kennett boycotted the program.

>This, IMHO, is _not a good thing_.

I agree with you that news organisations and politicians should not
have their hands too deeply in the other's pockets.  However, based on
the news coverage of both the ABC and the commercial networks, it's
not immediately clear to me that the ABC is significantly different.

For example, I think we would agree that the ABC has a shared
perspective on certain issues.  As Howard pointed out, can you
identify the conservative counter-part of Phillip Adams?

Doug

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What happens if a big asteroid hits the Earth?  Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
can assume it will be pretty bad.  -- Dave Barry

douglas.buckser@acslink.aone.net.au