Ita Buttrose to offer no retreat on ABC Four Corners program

ABC chair Ita Buttrose. Picture: Supplied

There has been a dramatic change in a key policy area by the Morrison government. It has abandoned its suppression strategy after concluding it has fallen short of its objective, so will go all out now for elimination.

No, we are not talking about an escalation of the war against the coronavirus. We mean the war against the ABC.

This was one joke doing the rounds last weekend. Journalists with decades of experience dealing with politicians were full of suggestions on how the ABC chair, Ita Buttrose, should respond to a letter from Communications Minister Paul Fletcher seeking a detailed “please explain” about the recent Four Corners program Inside the Can­berra Bubble, which focused on allegations about the private lives of cabinet ministers Christian Porter and Alan Tudge.

One respected retired senior journo who worked in newspapers and the ABC recalled his first editor at the defunct Sydney Sun had answered a lengthy letter of complaint from a NSW Askin government minister, similar to the one Fletcher had sent last week to Buttrose, with one word. Noted. That was it.

Buttrose has spent a huge chunk of her life dealing with extreme pressure and with much scarier people, such as the Packers. She needs little or no in­struction in handling difficult situations. She was never one to be pushed around, and she is not about to let anyone, not even the Prime Minister who appointed her or any of his ministers, do it now. All peaches and cream on the outside, Buttrose is steely on the inside.

She is said to be still crafting a reply to Fletcher that she will send shortly. It will contain several more words than the Sydney Sun editor, while expressing similar sentiments.

In her reply, she will reject absolutely the charge that she and the board failed in their duties. Those familiar with the inclinations of the board were confident her reply, expected to be pages long in order to cover the substance of the 15 questions from Fletcher, will give “short shrift” to the complaint.

As it should. Anything less would be seen as the ABC chair and board wilting under pressure from the government. The broadcaster’s credibility would be damaged. Staff would mutiny. And they would be justified. Buttrose knows all this.

Fletcher made his letter public via a tweet before Buttrose, ensconced in a strategy meeting, had even had a chance to read it. Along with the contents, that also rankled. Fletcher asked why the private lives of politicians were newsworthy, why privacy had been invaded, why denials were ignored, why the program did not investigate Labor and why it was hostile to the Liberal Party.

There will be no concessions from Buttrose in her reply. The charge of bias will be rejected. There will be no apology or any hint of it — nor any retreat from the decision to broadcast. She will inform Fletcher all proper processes were followed. She will defend the ABC’s processes, and she will assert that the board’s role in ­ensuring that news gathering is accurate and impartial has been properly discharged.

She is expected to say the program noted the problems identified were not restricted to one side of politics. However, many point out the ABC could not ­construct a program based on ­rumours about Labor without corroborating witnesses or evidence that was not available.

Given Porter has said he is waiting to see the letter before he decides whether to take legal ­action, it will also be legalled. As was the program.

While ABC managing director David Anderson has the final say on what runs, and he did not need her permission, he did tell Senate estimates that Buttrose had seen the episode before it aired. She endorsed his decision to broadcast it.

She does not intend to step back from that. She has not re­assessed, in light of the controversy it generated and the fury from the government, to conclude that perhaps it might have been a ­mistake to air it.

Whatever the shortcomings of that Four Corners episode, in my view people have a right to know as much as possible about the character of the people they are asked to elect to govern them. They can then decide whether or not to vote for them.

Politicians have always sought to silence or punish journalists or discredit media that refuse to recognise their genius or reveal disagreeable information. Prime ministers complain to proprietors or call editors demanding correspondents be sacked or they try to bully them into submission. Or they want royal commissions or inquiries to set guidelines, investigate alleged bias, or impose codes of conduct.

The instinct of journalists and commercial media — where Buttrose began in her teens — is not to buckle but to retaliate. If anything, Fletcher’s extraordinary letter, which ordinarily would have been sent to the Australian Communications and Media Authority instead of to Buttrose, appears to have strengthened the resolve of the ABC board to push back against the government.

Buttrose has a responsibility to ensure the ABC’s independence is not compromised. Nor can she allow it to be seen to be compromised. She understands that completely, and those close to her expect she will act accordingly. She was never going to be a government mouthpiece leading an organisation that every prime minister has sought to tame.

That is exactly the way it should be.

Expect the government to continue its offensive against the ABC. It plays well with its conservative base and intimidates (some) journalists. Funding cuts materially affect the ABC, but the psychological warfare with the persistent accusations of bias or inaccuracy is designed to chip away at its credibility.

Now if the ABC evens up with a Labor expose, it will be accused of caving to the government. If it doesn’t, the government will say it proves bias.

On ABC Radio National, Fletcher refused to say what he would do next if he found the reply unsatisfactory. Given Scott Morrison’s sensitivity to criticism or being crossed, you can bet it won’t be pretty.