The Federal Opposition has accused John Howard of again trying to nobble the ABC, after revelations the ABC Board has begun ‘bias’ monitoring of news and current affairs broadcasts until the next Federal election, due later this year.
The monitoring, using ABC funds, is being done by Rehame and began with last week’s Budget coverage.
Shadow Communications’ Minister, Lindsay Tanner, says the ABC has implemented an unprecedented, continuous media monitoring system by Rehame at significant cost.
“The Howard Government originally proposed that this
monitoring system be conducted by the Department of
Communications but, later, the idea was dropped.
“Just like with David Flint’s ABA, the Howard Government is trying to turn the ABC into a branch of the Liberal Party.
“The ABC Board is now more concerned with imposing political correctness on the ABC than providing educational programs for students.
“Having stacked the ABC Board with conservative appointments, Howard Government staffers are now instructing ABC Board members on how to impose John Howard’s view of ‘bias’ on the ABC’s reporting.
“The Howard Government is destroying the independence and integrity of the ABC. John Howard has nobbled the regulator and he has now been caught out nobbling our national broadcaster.”
But Communications Minister Daryl Williams says the Federal Government had nothing to do with the scrutiny of ABC election coverage, and that the Government did not pressure the ABC into extra monitoring.
“I can understand that the ABC wants to be as sure as it can that its charter obligations to present fair and unbiased reporting is fulfilled.” says Williams.
ABC Board Member, Ramona Koval, has written to Chairman, Donald McDonald, objecting to the Board decision to begin outside monitoring.
The ABC normally requires its own employees to keep a strict tally and to balance the amount of minutes spent covering each party during an election campaign. The difference in this most recent decision is that no election has yet been announced and campaigning has not begun; and also it is being conducted by an outside source.
The board decision, which was revealed on ABC tv’s ‘Media Watch’, sets a new precedent for how political coverage is handled, a decision which Koval thinks requires further policy debate.
The letter reads:
Dear Donald,
I’m writing to clarify my views about the decision by the Managing Director
to outsource to the private sector bias and balance monitoring of the ABC’s
output.
I am deeply concerned that the MD has determined that one of the two
parallel strands of these arrangements is to be commenced on May 12th
2004, without seeking a formal resolution of the Board. The rationale for
such a move seems incoherent, as does the strategy by which the outcome to
determine “the extent of political coverage and the issues explored and
the extent to which ABC programs have dealt fairly and impartially with
them” is to be achieved.
I oppose the MD’s proposal firstly because of its origin and the way the
Board has handled the issue.
It has arisen from a letter tabled at the Board’s March meeting from
a Director to the Chairman after a “chance” meeting with an ex-advisor of
the former Minister (Alston) at Parliament House in mid-March detailing an
approach that Senator Alston made to
Media Monitors to “carry out a review of bias at the ABC.”
This follows the fact that Senator Alston has already twice formally
complained about ABC bias, and his accusations have twice been
overwhelmingly rejected. This third attempt through a “chance” meeting
constitutes serious , improper and continuing political interference in
the processes of the ABC Board, and the Editorial Policies of the
Corporation.
It should be rejected as a third disturbing attempt to resurrect his
campaign against the ABC. If the Federal Government wants to change
existing accountabilities applying to the ABC it can introduce amendments to
the ABC Act and/or Broadcasting Services Act. This would be a more
honourable and proper method than bringing pressure/influence to bear on
individual Directors through informal intermediaries.
At the April 2004 meeting the MD agreed to bring the methodology issues
that I raised at the March meeting to the next Board meeting for discussion.
I fail to see then, how the Board can have anything other than token
involvement if this “monitoring” can start on 12th May, when the May Board
meeting is due on May 26th, 2004. The Board will be abrogating its
responsibility if it allows this pivotal policy issue to become simply a
management decision. This is unacceptable.
I oppose it secondly because the ABC is already subject to the following
internal and external accountabilities:
* ABC Act
* ABC Board Editorial policies
* ABC Code of Conduct
– upward referral of contentious content before broadcast
– management supervision of content from Network editors to
program Executive producers
– internal legal vetting before broadcast.
* Defamation and contempt laws of the federal, state and
territories
* Internal complaints review executive
* Independent complaints review panel
* External appeals to the Australian Broadcasting Authority
* Audience complaints
* Parliamentary scrutiny via Senate Estimates and parliamentary
questions with and without notice
* ANAO Audits of ABC accounts and corporate governance
Thirdly I oppose it because this proposal is uncosted and its
methodology is unknown and untested. It is not as though there is a
generally accepted and tested system for the assessment of bias and balance.
It is a puzzling move as the MD has publicly defended our bias monitoring
and the Chair and the Board have defended our editorial integrity.
The
move suggests to the public that the Board has now abandoned its previous
public position. This could be particularly embarrassing if at its
foundation is nothing more than the chance encounter of a Director with a
former advisor of a former minister. We have had a number of inquiries and
reports on bias in the past ten years – all have found the ABC professional
and independent. [sentence removed because of Board confidentiality]
I am concerned that the MD is relying on the methodological advice of a
British audience researcher whose background and qualifications he
does not detail, and that he does not provide the Board with any information
about exactly what the parameters of this advice are to be.
I urge that any such outsourcing of bias and balance monitoring be made
with full Board disclosure, with full discussion of methodological aspects,
and with a strategy in place to deal with the results of such a survey.
If the ABC Board itself now hires yet another watchdog to do yet another
survey and analysis – months before we are in election mode – it belies
all previous findings and our own stated belief in the outcome of those
findings. In so doing it will have a significant further detrimental
impact on staff morale.
I do not endorse this move by the MD, and I re-iterate that the Board
does not have enough information on which to go ahead. As I told the Board
at the April meeting, I hold these views very strongly as a consequence of
my duties as a Board Director under Clause 8(1)(b) of the ABC Act.
Sincerely,
Ramona Koval
Staff Elected Director
ABC Board
A Tender Document outlining the monitoring proposal says:
“Tenders are invited from all interested parties that can provide an
independent audit of ABC’s output across the three platforms of
Television, Radio and Online… Submissions should:
• define in detail the exact nature of the services that they offer.
• provide an in-depth description, by platform, of how the service
will analyse and report the ABC’s coverage of all political issues
in the period up to and including the election period.
• include a quantitative measurement of the voicetime (or online
word count) of all coverage broken out by political party and
their candidates, as well as for key independents.”
The monitoring is expected to detail “the station the material appeared on,
the program it was contained in,
the Party advocate it was presented by and
the major issues covered.”
It is also be required to “put forward proposals to quantify as far as is possibly, whether
the coverage if favourable, neutral or unfavourable to the
political parties and/or candidates being reported.”
Radio programs being monitored include:
• Radio National breakfast 6.00am – 8.30 am Monday – Friday,
and the Saturday Country Breakfast 6.00am – 7.00am
• Radio National – Late Night Live 10.00pm – 11.00pm.
• Radio National – Australia Talks Back.
• Triple J – “Hack” current affairs program at drive 5.30pm
Monday – Friday.
• Morning and Drivetime programs on Local Radio Stations 702 ABC Sydney, 774 ABC Melbourne, 612 ABC Brisbane, 891 ABC Adelaide, 720 ABC Perth, 666 ABC Canberra,
936 ABC Hobart, 105.7 ABC Darwin and 1233 ABC Newcastle.
Approximately six regional Local Radio stations [on a rotation]
Local Radio News Bulletins at 7.45am; 12.00noon; 5.00pm; 6.00pm
and 7.00pm in the above capital cities.
Current Affairs programs AM Monday – Saturday, The World Today Monday – Friday
And PM Monday – Friday.
Romana Koval is a Staff-Elected Director on the ABC Board, with a two-year term which began in June 2002.
Koval presents and produces Radio National’s weekly ‘Books and Writing,’ program and co-presents ‘Australia Talks Books,’ with Sandy McCutcheon.