Groupthink takes over at national broadcaster

IF you watch and listen long enough, you can be encouraged by journalists ignoring what many would argue is the groupthink of the ABC.

ABC chief Mark Scott

NOW and then, if you watch and listen long enough, you can be encouraged by journalists ignoring what many would argue is the groupthink of the ABC. But the reaction from within can be discouraging.

This month the 7.30 program aired a strong story in which whistleblowers revealed how some asylum-seekers were committing identity fraud to win humanitarian visas. Through government action and individual cases in the past, we know this is a real issue but not one the ABC normally likes to ventilate. The reward 7.30 and its journalists received for this attempt to report reality was to be attacked by the ABC's Media Watch program. The spat continues.

Likewise, this newspaper has been engaged in a debate with Media Watch. This time the program has been defending the ABC's alarmist reporting of claims that climate scientists had received death threats. Outsiders sometimes wonder what is more important at the national broadcaster: the facts or their impact on a political agenda.

For this examination of ABC groupthink, Inquirer spoke to several senior ABC insiders (who must remain anonymous) and to managing director Mark Scott, who recognises some of the challenges, defends the ABC's even-handedness and cites Media Watch's autonomy as proof of openness about standards.

Groupthink, at heart, is merely peer pressure. It is not about dictated policies or attitudes but something more insidious. When a collection of like-minded people engages in a common pursuit for extended periods, a form of consensus can take hold. If it leads to a form of self-censorship, then it acts against instincts for questioning or dissent, and this is at odds with an open-minded sense of inquiry fundamental to journalism.

It is a term used, controversially, by former ABC chairman Maurice Newman in an address to staff. "Groupthink so limits curiosity that instead of fresh thinking, it encourages the same stale orthodoxies and superficial stereotypes," he said. "People and issues are seen as either worthy or unworthy." Newman specifically referenced the climate change debate as suffering from groupthink.

Groupthink is a trap for all journalists and many studies have shown journalists tend to form a liberal-left cohort. Part of the explanation is simply the people it attracts. makes the point that this effect is intensified at Aunty.

"If you consider who wants to go to university, then who wants to study communications or journalism, then those that want to pursue news journalism, and then further filter it down to those who want to work for a public broadcaster, you end up with a relatively narrow, self-selecting sample."

Others in the corporation complain about the programming and production hubs of Southbank in Melbourne and, especially, Ultimo in Sydney. These inner-city ABC powerhouses sit in areas where the nation's Green vote is highest, where the staff wear black, drink macchiatos and fill city bike lanes. ABC journalists from farther afield are sometimes frustrated, but not surprised, that their output reflects this environment - one that is disconnected from most Australians, who are suburban or regional.

It is worth remembering that internally the ABC refers to BAPH states (Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, Hobart). A senior ABC journalist from that outer circle directed me to a television promotion for Radio National's Drive program. "Drive?" quips one of the presenters. "Do Radio National listeners even have cars?" Quite. The commute, after all, is so suburban. On the ABC, references to the suburbs often seem to sneer at "McMansions" or channel Kath & Kim.

Scott admits to an endless quest to improve what he sees as an already ingrained "connectedness" with the community and is even talking about adjusting the spread of journalists across the country. But he defends Southbank and Ultimo against any insularity, insisting that the "vast bulk of our staff actually live in the suburbs".

Critics see the problem at the ABC as too much news judgment, opinion and perspective flowing in the same direction on a range of key issues. The ABC tends to favour an alarmist view on climate change, open borders approach on asylum-seekers, rights over responsibilities in indigenous affairs, antagonism towards Christianity but tolerance for Islam, reverence for the UN, animus towards the US, enthusiasm for gay marriage, suspicion about business and development, and deference to the green agenda.

ABC presenters are not supposed to air their opinions. ABC Radio National breakfast host Fran Kelly controversially declared support for the carbon tax last year on Insiders: "Bring on the certainty, I say, get the thing voted in." Late Night Live host Phillip Adams tweets about Kevin Rudd's stay on his farm and endorses Rudd's political cause on air. And former Labor staff such as Kerry O'Brien, Barrie Cassidy or Mark Bannerman host or produce political programs.

Yet surely we are sophisticated enough to understand the various perspectives and experiences of writers, interviewers and producers, and discern fact from opinion. Perhaps frowning on opinion is part of the problem and unburdening ABC presenters would promote transparency and plurality. Scott says that's an interesting suggestion, but he is sticking to the status quo.

The world many ABC journalists inhabit must make it difficult to find a mainstream perspective. At a 2010 University of Technology, Sydney forum on Objectivity and the Climate Debate, ABC environment correspondent Sarah Clarke was forced to defend herself against criticism from two academics for giving too much air-time to climate sceptics, including Christopher Monckton.

Clarke appealed to her audience by saying Monckton's visit was newsworthy because it was like "a religious leader coming to Australia and questioning the existence of Catholicism". Associate professor of journalism Tom Horton asked: "Is it time for journalists to take a principled decision and stop reporting the views of climate change sceptics?"

Clarke was quick to point out that the ABC didn't fall into the trap of "balance bias" by giving sceptical views equal weight with those of peer-reviewed scientists. A reasonable point.

But she went on to express concern about other journalists and commentators: "Andrew Bolt turning around in an opinion piece suggesting that what is his opinion, is fact, and this is where the general public get confused."

So Clarke can share her derisory opinion of Monckton but Bolt's opinions apparently masquerade as fact. And - the critical point - the "general public get confused".

This vignette tells us how groupthink can become entrenched when journalists test their views among the academics, public servants and hipsters of the inner city. It is a world where the ABC journalist can never be progressive enough, so their own sense of balance is affirmed. And, importantly, there is a tendency to explain away the often conservative views of the suburbanites and country folk as an apparent ignorance, encouraged, if not created, by commercial media.

This is an inner-city snobbery seen when Q&A host Tony Jones prefaces a question to a farming representative with "I'm not even sure if you're on the internet ... " or when local radio talks in condescending tones about hosting Sydney Festival events in Parramatta. Little wonder that after her much-admired work in the wilds of Afghanistan, journalist Sally Sara's next assignment has been to cover events west of the Nepean River.

A distinctive ABC culture is not new. It was described in the book The ABC: Aunt Sally and Sacred Cow by Clement Semmler in 1981. "There is a kind of consensus, a pool of shared social and political assumptions," Semmler wrote of ABC journalists and producers, "which on many subjects - abortion, divorce, censorship, drugs, immigration, promiscuity, the environment, war, capital punishment, penal policy, capitalism, education, social legislation - are at best partisan opinions and at the worst the openings of a small, well-educated, middle-class, left-wing minority."

An experienced ABC hand retorts that The Australian, too, might accommodate a groupthink. That is a fair riposte but leads to why this issue is important when it comes to the ABC. Any privately owned media is free to exhibit any culture it desires, and it will live and die on its reputation. Just look at the demise of the News of the World. But the public broadcaster, on the other hand, is funded by taxpayers and guided by legislation that demands the provision of a service for all Australians.

And while my experience of News Limited reveals a culture of open-mindedness, bold journalism and robust debate, there is certainly leadership from the top.

Editors are employed to edit, to give direction and shape to their enterprise.

At Aunty, the ability to shape a culture is highly questionable.

When people talk about the ABC as a staff collective, my memory returns to a night in the bicentenary year when I was part of a band of bolshie ABC journalists sitting in a suburban Adelaide back yard, sipping wine and plotting the downfall of a shiny-suited boss Sydney had inflicted on us. We were in no doubt that we would get rid of him; the debate hinged merely on competing strategies of an immediate strike or a staged campaign.

This trait of an empowered staff can be the ABC's strength and weakness. It stymies the corporation's leadership, providing built-in resistance to direction. Permanently tenured section heads, program producers or journalists can bristle with demands of editorial independence, legitimate or not, at the slightest hint of intervention. It is the sort of public-sector power structure that would make running a commercial media enterprise, which needs to be responsive to audience demands, almost impossible.

Yet it can be argued that this "collection of low-lying tribes" - as one senior ABC journalist describes the organisation - acts as a counter to groupthink, ensuring that somewhere in the vast empire, always, dissent can flourish. And few would argue, for instance, that ABC regional radio stations aren't more entwined with their communities.

Certainly this is how Scott sees it. "We have 65 live radio microphones open right now, each with different production teams, operating under editorial guidelines, but catering to the news and needs of their communities - and they do a great job without any interference from Ultimo."

Even a long way from Ultimo, and even from ABC insiders conscious of a groupthink problem, there is praise for Scott's commitment to staying in touch with journalists and programmers in every corner of the country. "Our people constantly question our editorial judgments and seek new ways to engage with local communities," Scott boasts, "and we do it well."

Yet, as one non-Sydney journalist observes, the far-flung tribes of the ABC are prone to take their cues from the pronouncements of the big chiefs - people such as Adams, Jones, Kelly and Jonathan Holmes. So it is little wonder another insider claims there is no room internally for nuanced views on climate change. Scott, on the other hand, points to the recent "Can you change your mind about climate" documentary as an example of fostering open debate. Both extremes were critical of it.

"I am consistently surprised by how two people sitting alongside each other can watch the same program or interview and have opposite views about which way it was skewed," the managing director laments. "People clearly bring their own perspectives to bear on whatever they see."

Scott doesn't promise change; rather, he argues for a constant focus on staying in touch with the ABC's various communities. But there is also a hint of denial when he confronts suggestions of anti-suburban, anti-US and anti-Christian predilections.

"I've spent time in the US, I'm a Christian and I live in the suburbs, and when I listen to the ABC I don't find views that jar with or offend me."