‘Inside’ the ABC’s climate group
Alas, the latest ABC staff-initiated brainchild is no more. As revealed on Monday through emails obtained by The Australian, senior journalists at Aunty had discussed establishing an “ABC-Staff climate crisis advisory group” to “report back to ABC management our ideas and strategies for responding to the climate crisis both internally and externally”.
READ MORE: ABC staff push for climate group | Climate crisis group won’t happen: Ita
ABC producer and presenter Barbara Heggen had made the proposal, suggesting a “solutions journalism approach”. ABC Melbourne journalist Karen Percy described it as “a fabulous idea,” national rural and regional correspondent Dominique Schwartz said she was “keen”. Senior journalist Linda Mottram said it was a “great idea”, also speaking of the “need (for) constant reminders that we must report established science, the evidence, and not myth”. Incidentally, Mottram’s ABC bio notes “Most recently she has taken a strong interest in editorial training at the ABC”.
The Institute of Public Affairs director of policy Gideon Rozner summed it up best. “Because if there’s a gap in ABC coverage, it’s climate change,” he quipped. As noted by The Australian’s media editor, Leo Shanahan, ABC policies require that “editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests”. Yesterday ABC chairwoman Ita Buttrose put the kybosh on these journalists-cum-crisis activists, stating “it was one of those ideas that is not going to happen.”
Let’s examine a hypothetical case of how the ABC rank and file would have reacted had the subject matter for this “advisory group’ been another matter of vital importance.
From Max Kildare
To: ABC All Staff
Sorry for the bulk email but I’m reaching out to gauge interest in forming an ABC-staff charter crisis advisory group. I’m thinking we could gather the brains trust of ABC staffers to develop ways to report on and inform people about the charter crisis by using a solutions journalism approach. We could report to ABC management our idea and strategies for responding to the charter crisis both internally and externally.
From: Felicity Longmore
I’m keen. I have just been looking into how other media organisations are dealing with coverage of climate change – hang on, charter crisis? Is this your idea of a joke?
From: Adrian Falthrope
We have a charter?
From: Max Kildare
Not only that, Adrian, we have a statutory charter. We are obliged by law to broadcast programs, and I quote, “that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community …” Serious question: how many people are aware of that?
From: Tomas Dovich
Not disputing that our charter is enshrined in law, but I draw your attention to section 6(4) of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 “Nothing in this section shall be taken to impose on the Corporation a duty that is enforceable by proceedings in a court.” As such my interpretation of Parliament’s intent is that our so-called charter is at best aspirational rather than obligatory. For journalism to operate according to a legalistic black-letter law would be counter-productive.
From: Lucietta Longbottom
Tomas, can I just ask you reconsider in future using the adjective ‘black’ in a pejorative context? Thank you.
From: Taj Philmore
Max appears to be making the mistake of reading that particular subsection in isolation, when instead he should read it in conjunction with section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the ABC Act, which requires we broadcast “programs of an educational nature”. Regard climate reporting, it would be a violation of the latter to broadcast views that differ from those of science.
From: Philomena Teston
Well said, Taj. To add to that, I hope Max is not arguing we should be returning to the 1983 era, when old white men in suits decided everything.
From: Lucietta Longbottom
Agree with Philomena. “Charter” is derived from the Latin word “chartula”, meaning papyrus. If we are going to revisit our responsibilities, why not list them under one of the many indigenous words for “duties”? I’ll speak to one of our Eora Nation reps. Imagine what it would do for reconciliation if they were ceremoniously etched in bark on display in the main foyer!
From: Edwina Frogmore
Max, I see you’re stationed at Broken Hill, which has an elevation of 315 metres above sea level. Unlike us at Ultimo and South Melbourne (15 and 14 metres above respectively) you don’t have to live with the existential threat of being displaced by rising waters. You’ll excuse us for not having the time to pontificate about abstract concepts such as objectivity and balance.
From: Benjamin Tullop (CPSU)
Edwina, you touch on an excellent point. As your union delegate for the Ultimo site, let me say we are acutely aware of these concerns. I’d argue our proximity to rising seas warrants an additional allowance in the next enterprise agreement. On that note I see last month that 1000 British academics and campaigners have signed a petition demanding universities give sabbaticals to lecturers to help them fight climate change. To quote “Universities are the bastions of wisdom and knowledge that are urgently needed to combat the climate crisis.” The same could be said of the ABC.
From: Alfonse Turo
Colleagues, I’m sure I’m not the only one to feel dispirited by someone questioning our valuable work. How many times does it need to be said that bias is in the eyes of the beholder? Max, I hope you’re not insinuating we are biased regarding climate reporting. How is there a balanced way of describing the tipping point our burning planet faces thanks to runaway warming and carbon pollution, resulting in accelerated sea level rises?
From: Johanna Freund
Alfonse, I agree. This from The Guardian yesterday: “The planet is running a hideous fever, and the antibodies – all those protesters – are finally kicking in. It’s a race, and we’re behind, and we better start catching up right now.” That’s written by a Schumann Distinguished Scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College, Vermont. I’m proud to work for an organisation that reports on climate using the same language as an environmental scholar’s.
From: Philomena Teston
Furthermore, the word ‘charter’ has hierarchical, patriarchal, and anachronistic connotations. We are a collectivist organisation where all are equal, and any suggestion otherwise should be eschewed.
From: Angela Verimore
Max, if you’re implying that we’re not balanced regarding climate change reporting, you’re wrong. We are critical of everyone, regardless of political affiliation. Just last week I was saying we should have slammed Greens senator Jordon Steele-John for accusing the federal government of being “borderline arsonists”. What’s this “borderline” equivocating? Time Four Corners exposed rightist infiltration of the Greens.
From Tracey Dunnimon
I remember listening to a panellist on The Drum in May this year who said: “I was on another panel with a different program the other day and it’s actually quite confronting to be in the same room as somebody who is completely against climate change and doesn’t think that that’s happening”. I have to say, Max: it’s quite confronting to be on the same forum as someone who prioritises semantics over saving the planet.
From Max Kildare
Doesn’t the defensive reaction to my suggestion we abide by the law speak for itself?
From: Lucietta Longbottom
Well, Max, history is replete with atrocities caused by blindly obeying the law, and it always begins with a seemingly innocuous legal obligation.
From: Damien Vermont
Max, Ita Buttrose, David Anderson and many of us went to Bankstown recently for a two-day workshop on making content more relevant to Australians. Are you saying we should do a repeat exercise? Travelling in a Humvee is bloody uncomfortable I’ll have you know.
From: Philomena Teston
Could I point out to Max that only last year One Nation leader Pauline Hanson tried to legislate (unsuccessfully, fortunately) that we be “fair and balanced” in our reporting. Is Max comfortable with supporting Hansonite policies?
From: Tomas Dovich
It should be noted section 6(2)(a)(iv) of the Act requires us to consider “the multicultural character of the Australian community”. The expressions “suburban Australians”, “conservative perspective” or “mainstream Australia” do not appear. I submit that omission is indicative of Parliament’s intent.
From: Max Kildare
Whoa boy. By the looks of the responses, I’ll have to dumb this down. Exhibit one, everyone, the English dictionary:
ob·jec·tive (əb-jĕk′tĭv)
adjective
1.being the object or goal of one’s efforts or actions.
2.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:
From: Philomena Teston
That is really, really offensive.
From: Max Kildare
Does anyone remember that “Life of Brian” segment where Brian tells the crowd “You’re all individuals”, and they reply ironically in unison “Yes. We’re all individuals”?
From: Felicity Longmore
How is that relevant?
From: Philomena Teston
Relevance?
From: Tomas Dovich
What’s that got to do with it?
From Edwina Frogmore
Relevance?
From: Damien Vermont
What’s the connection?
From: Lucietta Longbottom
I don’t see the relevance.
From: Alfonse Turo
Struggling to see the relevance here.
From: Angela Verimore
The point being?
From: Johanna Freund
I agree with Angela, Alfonse, Lucietta, Damien, Edwina, Tomas, Philomena and Felicity. How is this relevant?