News that John Howard plans an “independent panel” to review complaints of ABC bias opens up an exciting opportunity to get more accountability all round – of the government and the commercial media.
In watching news stories develop, it’s always wise to ask yourself: “Who benefits?”
Let’s see. The government had no complaints about the ABC’s coverage of the war on Iraq at the time. That’s most unlike the first Gulf War, when Bob Hawke had plenty of contemporaneous complaints.
Richard Alston complained long after the war in retaliation for the ABC dumping its digital TV experiment for lack of funds. His complaints, 68 of them, were against only one program, AM, yet he alleged systemic bias.
The ABC’s internal review body dismissed most complaints, and found a problem in vocal tone in a couple. It also accused Alston of systematic misrepresentation and decontextualisation. First Alston threatened to complain to the Australian Broadcasting Authority, which has the power to investigate complaints against the ABC. But since the complaints have no substance, what better tactic to escalate the pressure than the threat of yet another another review body.
From Alston and Howard’s public comments so far it seems the “independent panel” will have no legislative backing. It will be an informal thorn in the ABC’s side, yet another way for the Government to discourage the ABC from fearlessly doing its job of keeping governments accountable to the people.
Who will appoint the members of the panel? The government, perhaps? They haven’t managed to control the ABC’s independence by stacking its board, so why not try something new?
Remember, Alston and Howard have been trying to emasculate the ABC as a fearless scrutineer ever since it got to power. Way back in 1996 Alston wrote in a leaked Cabinet submission that he wanted to review the ABC’s charter to “influence future ABC functions and activities more directly”.
Still, the new idea opens the door to an exciting public debate on improving accountability of the institutions in our nation essential for a vibrant democracy.
John Howard is now on record saying internal inquiries aren’t good enough. “I guess it’s inevitable if you have an internal review assessment, there’s always a tendency to declare yourself not guilty,” Mr Howard said. “Probably it’s better with the public broadcaster to have some kind of arm’s-length assessment of these things. I think that is better.”
Fantastic! He’s an old hand at calling internal inquiries when he or his government is accused of lying, misleading parliament, rorting travel allowances, abusing fair process and favouring its mates. Now that he acknowledges the unsatisfactory nature of such inquiries, perhaps our national government will finally get a national version of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Allegations of substance could go to this body for independent review and report to Parliament.
And let’s broaden the media aspect to the commercial media. The ABC is established under legislation, has legal obligations to fulfil – including balanced reporting – and the public has the right to complain and have complaints considered. Yet the commercial media is virtually unaccountable, despite its immense power and influence.
The former Australian Broadcasting Tribunal had power to consider every three years whether a TV licence holder was “a fit and proper person” to hold the licence, and hearings considered public complaints. Labor dumped that accountability under pressure form the networks, and the new Australian Broadcasting Authority is virtually toothless when it comes to enforcing voluntary standards.
The funny thing is that during the recent debate on the government’s proposed cross media changes, the Senate tried to get a bit more accountability for the commercial networks. Just a little bit, mind you – like allowing the ABA to require the networks to run an apology or give a right of reply if they got something wrong. The ABA already has the power to order the ABC and SBS to do so, but the government rejected every single attempt to bring accountability to the commercial media. Why?
How about extending the “independent panel” model to assess complaints of bias or owner interference in news against the commercial TV and radio media? A bit of balance on the commercial talkback radio networks, perhaps? A requirement that Alan Jones correct himself on air after he makes a false claim?
And what about newspapers? Fairfax is the only commercial media group to have a publicly available, super-strict code of ethics. It requires that commercial considerations play no part in news judgement, fairness in reporting and full disclosure of conflicts of interest. Yet there is nothing in the government’s cross media proposals to secure a commitment from any buyer of Fairfax to stick with its ethics code or to have any ethics code at all. How about a requirement that all newspaper and commercial media groups publish a similar code, with complaints about its breach going to independent panels for review?
The trick here, of course, as with an independent ABC panel, is that it has to be independent of government, otherwise you’re into the dangerous territory of government control of the media, a key indicator of the descent of a democracy into fascism.
Here’s my suggestion. Each media group is required to establish a panel to review breaches of ethics codes (or legislative charters in the case of the ABC and SBS). There would be three members – one appointed by journalists on staff, one by management and the third, to chair the group, by agreement between staff and management. These panels would have legislative backing and the power to enforce their rulings through publication of their decisions in the media group concerned, corrections and rights of reply.
Come on John, let’s get serious about media accountability, and your own. Unless, of course, you have a very different agenda.
***
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Richard Alston’s complaints against AM are at dcita.
The ABC’s findings are at abc.
Send your findings to mkingston@smh.com.au