The answer to the ABC’s editorial interference disaster is close at hand: do the job as laid down in the charter, the editorial polices and the code of conduct. And trust the broadcasters. It’s not hard.
The ABC already has the full range of policies and tools it needs to ensure accuracy, impartiality and independence in line with community expectations. As a former manager, the imbroglio the national broadcaster finds itself in frustrates me because it is so unnecessary and has done so much damage.
Any reading of these standards by the editorial managers who oversaw the Antoinette Lattouf public relations disaster should have seen that the fill-in broadcaster in no way breached any ABC policy or standard. Some managers did see this and suggested no action be taken.
Their professional advice was ignored by senior managers who, I presume, were worn down by pro-Israel lobbyists and the Murdoch media. They are paid to not collapse in the face of these pressures. They failed, but the remaining managers, under the new MD Hugh Marks, do not need to do much to right the ship.
Marks’ statement last week suggests he holds much the same opinion.
Managers have at their disposal all the tools they need to avoid these problems, namely the impartiality clauses embedded in the ABC’s editorial policies: “Gather and present news and information with due impartiality; Do not misrepresent any perspective; Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.”
Lattouf’s work in no way breached these standards.
Nor did she breach the ABC’s social media guidelines, which say in part: “The ABC code of conduct requires workers to be conscious of their responsibility to protect the ABC’s reputation, independence, impartiality and integrity where personal use of social media may intersect with their professional life.”
I was for some years responsible for the implementation of editorial policies and social media practice at the national broadcaster. I am proud that in my time, no team member under my supervision was ever found to have breached editorial standards. But I have also seen firsthand what happens when senior managers fail to implement those standards.
In my time, the first great debate among staff at 774 ABC Melbourne was how to deal with the opinions of Pauline Hanson. Some staff openly expressed the idea that she not be given airtime. More mature heads prevailed, explaining to the rest of the team how important it was to the role of the national broadcaster to interrogate her views.
I worked with Jon Faine for many years. Jon has a Jewish background, trained in law, and was a well-known “lefty” with experience at community legal centres and consumer advocacy. This equipped him to be a well-informed broadcaster.
No listener was unaware of Jon’s commitment to social justice. But he did not have to put aside his personal views and interesting background to remain impartial on air.
Our broadcasters’ tasks, which we reflected on at almost every weekly staff meeting, were to choose engaging and interesting subject matter, provide all relevant views, and allow guests to fairly express their opinions. This is the simple art of impartiality.
There is no provision for the ABC to employ people who do not have opinions.
It is important to understand the production process at the ABC: all presenters have a team around them — part of the process of choosing topics, finding and briefing guests, assisting with research and developing questions. In my time, I was always able to rely on the production teams to ensure impartiality underpinned output.
The beginning of the end of this trust in broadcast teams came ironically through one of the ABC’s best interviewers: Phillip Adams.
Adams on Radio National’s Late Night Live was so determined to only host a range of guests from the left of the political spectrum that the ABC implemented new content guidelines to allow broadcasters to reflect on air their personal opinions.
This allowed Late Night Live to choose a specific range of guests and ignore those with alternative opinions. Adams enraged conservative listeners with his approach. Instead of ensuring that he followed editorial policies on impartiality, the managers caved in and created what was known as “The Philip Adams Clause”, and tried to rectify the problem by adding presenters like Amanda Vanstone, who was conversely expected to express her own conservative opinions.
In my view, better radio would have been created had Adams met the impartiality and diversity requirement.
Adam’s alter-ego at the ABC seems to be another broadcaster who fails to gather a range of diversified views about important matters — Ian McNamara from Australia All Over, who enrages his audience because he frequently agrees with interview guests from the conservative side of politics without providing corresponding alternative views.
In November, the ABC received numerous complaints about an interview with Dick Smith where McNamara did not line up alternative viewpoints. Climate 200’s Simon Holmes à Court was listening and called in as a talkback guest. The complaints handling team decided that this was sufficient to show that McNamara retained impartiality. The decision was an affront to all staff at the ABC who knew the broadcaster had got the decision entirely wrong.
The next steps for the ABC are simple: implement the editorial policies and standards, and show public support and defend the staff who are applying those standards.
An important step would be to carefully assess complaints made by those with provable vested interests.
I have recently spoken to ABC people whose work is — in any forum — exemplary, but they are being discouraged by their own managers from reporting freely and fairly because of the possibility of backlash from pro-Israel lobbyists. This must stop, and the power is in the hands of senior managers to stop it.
A second step would be to reinforce the performance management system, which only requires that staff demonstrate adherence to impartiality, accuracy and independence. It is easily measured and breaches are clear. There must be recognised penalties for breaches.
A third step would be to abandon entirely the social media guidelines, which — although they don’t say this — conflate personal opinions with impartiality. Staff need only be able to demonstrate how they were seen to be impartial in their work, not in their personal lives. There are a surprising number of people of faith at the ABC — they are not required to renounce their personal spirituality when conducting interviews about religion.
There are numerous people who letterbox for political candidates; work that doesn’t need to impact on their commitment to impartiality if they can demonstrate that their work meets impartiality guidelines.
And if staff are expected to adhere to recognised standards of behaviour, so must the board.
Chairman Kim Williams needs to rebuild the wall between governance and management. Complaints to the board should be forwarded without comment — and automatically — to the complaints handling process. No interference in this process can be tolerated.
If the board is dissatisfied with any governance aspect of the ABC, it works through the MD, who is responsible for day-to-day management. The board should not be engaging staff on ABC editorial and management decisions.