Editorial: ABC should think twice before asking readers to play god

More frequently than ever, the ABC veers beyond its responsibilities and into areas of questionable ethics.

More frequently than ever, the ABC veers beyond its responsibilities and into areas of questionable ethics.

This trend is noticeable in guest selection for the broadcaster’s talk shows, staff hiring apparently based more on fashionable identity politics than journalistic merit, and story presentation often seemingly intended to offend Australian values.

The ABC’s coverage of childhood issues is particularly noteworthy. Two years ago Radio National promoted a broadcast with the online blurb: “Is having a loving family an unfair advantage? Should parents snuggling up for one last story before lights out be even a little concerned about the advantage they might be conferring?

“Perhaps, in the interests of levelling the playing field, bedtime stories should also be ­restricted.”

Perhaps, in the interests of all Australians, the ABC itself should be restricted.

The national broadcaster has now blundered again with an ill-considered online item from the “Interactive Digital Storytelling team” that asks the question: “Would you remove these children from their families?”

Thereafter follow six cases described as “real situations where child protection workers had to decide whether to remove a child from their family”.

So far, no problem. Violence against children is a serious subject that deserves wide coverage. But then the ABC’s impulse for idiocy kicks in. Presumably to add a hip interactive component, the ABC actually invites readers to vote on whether the children should be taken away. This is presented almost in the manner of an online game. “Make your choice, then see if the experts agree,” the ABC urges.

Although the names of the children have been changed, we are still dealing with very real people in distressing circumstances. Reducing their suffering to a click-bait expert-agreement contest is so obvi­ously wrong that it is a wonder no senior staff intervened.

Yesterday the story occupied prominent front page placements at both the main ABC site and the ABC’s news site. And five ABC staffers were involved, including two editors.

The ABC does itself no favours with this trivialised presentation. Nor does it help ­illuminate an important subject. Vote yes to the ABC taking greater care.

Cartoon by Warren Brown.

THANKS FOR MAKING US TOPS

More information sources than ever before are now available in Sydney and across NSW — but quantity does not mean quality. Even in an information boom, The Daily Telegraph remains the primary choice of NSW residents for politics, sport and showbiz news. And that is consolidated by impressive readership gains.

It’s a case of The Daily Telegraph first and daylight second when it comes to competition for the biggest-selling and most influential state newspaper. And we have our readers to sincerely thank for that. Thank you, one and all.

LET NZ BE A WARNING

Compared with Australia, and our policy of constantly removing sitting prime ministers, in political terms New Zealand has enjoyed a relatively stable past decade.

That stability may now be at an end, after New Zealand First leader Winston Peters decided to join a coalition with Labour and the Greens that will allow Labour to be the main partner in government, with Jacinda Ardern as Prime Minister.

Jacinda Ardern is New Zealand’s new Prime Minister after her party polled less than 37 per cent.

The numbers from New Zealand’s election suggest this could be an awkward situation. Labour did far better than many expected early in the election campaign, but still captured less than 37 per cent of the primary vote. NZ First barely managed 7 per cent. And the Greens were way down at just 6.2 per cent.

Yet the combined seats held by this minnow collective were sufficient to overcome the nominally conservative National Party of outgoing PM Bill ­English, which won more than 44 per cent of the vote.

The NZ election is a reminder to Australians of how important it is to give thought to their votes in any election, because votes carelessly cast can deliver very unexpected — and possibly negative — outcomes.