Susie O’Brien: Why ABC has overstepped on Australia Day

The ABC’s job is to report the news, not create it. Picking sides in the divisive Invasion Day debate was offensive, inflammatory and wrong.

The ABC’s move to describe Australia Day as Invasion Day in a rundown of January 26 events is a gross overstep of its charter of impartiality.

It’s offensive, inflammatory and wrong.

The national broadcaster’s job is to report the news, not create it.

And yet it’s picked one side of a divisive debate – the Invasion Day side.

It even gives people reasons why they should break covid restrictions to attend Invasion Day rallies.

I personally support changing the date and I believe Australia Day is seen as Invasion Day by a growing number of us.

However, that’s my opinion, which has no place in a news article. The ABC should not be reporting opinion in a supposedly factual news piece designed to convey useful information.

The piece is designed to share details of events, not take one side of a rabid political debate.

The article in question doesn’t even put the two terms – Australia Day and Invasion Day – on equal footing. It is weighted overwhelmingly on the side of Invasion Day.

On one side it talks about “First Nations people” who want to “mourn the past and galvanise the community to address ongoing systemic racial injustice”. The ABC cheerleaders make it clear that’s the right side to be on.

The ABC gives people reasons why they should break covid restrictions to attend Invasion Day rallies. Picture: AAP

On the other side, it sneers at people who think it’s merely a “chance to spend time with family and friends at the beach or around barbecues” even though the day means much more than that for most.

In Melbourne the article renames the Dawn Service as the “Invasion Day Dawn Service” and mentions an “Invasion Day rally” on the steps of Parliament House.

Why is the ABC taking it upon itself to rename the Dawn Service? Or to give the time and place for a rally which could well contravene covid restrictions?

Never mind, the ABC points out that the organisers of the rally, “the Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance”, have a COVID safety plan in place with marshals to control attendees.

The only other event listed is the Share the Spirit Festival which brings together “artists, musicians and dancers to celebrate Aboriginal music and culture”.

Again, there’s no negative spin for the Indigenous event and little effort to include many of the hundreds of non-Indigenous events.

Same goes for all the other states’ events. The article points out with glee all the cancelled mainstream events then provides details of how readers can get to all the Indigenous events or reasons why they are taking place.

Sydney’s list of events is 200 words long. One hundred of these words are devoted to a justification of “one of the biggest Invasion Day events” which is “a planned march through the city starting at 9am at Djarrbarrgalli, or Sydney’s Domain”.

The article notes that the NSW government has restricted protests to 500 people, but it goes on to say people should attend – because Aboriginal people want “sovereignty, not constitutional recognition”.

It then reads: “rally organiser and Gumbaynggirr, Bundjalung and Dunghutti woman Elizabeth Jarrett said the community needed to ‘come together and fight back’, even if that breached health directives.

“Unlike COVID, the virus of colonial racism that came to these lands in 1788 cannot be defeated by self-isolation or quarantine,’ she said.”

It’s breathtaking in its overreach and audacity.

ABC staffer Sally Jackson defended the article by suggesting the broadcaster’s default terminology is still “Australia Day” but argues “Invasion Day” goes back to 1938 and should be used interchangeably.

Again, I support the term Invasion Day, but it should not be interchangeable by the ABC as part of its supposedly factual reporting.

There’s no doubt Australia Day is tainted. The date should be moved. But that’s my opinion. It’s not right for the ABC to report this opinion as fact in such a divisive and inflammatory manner.

[e-mail]