Coronation coverage showed flaws in ABC impartiality training

Coronation coverage showed flaws in ABC impartiality training

The public broadcaster’s strained presentation of King Charles III’s coronation and its associated panel of miserable malcontents throwing stones at British monarchy was truly a bizarre spectacle to behold – at least for a few minutes before the nausea set in.

How on earth can someone like Craig Foster, who was born and duly educated in this nation, then later represented it in soccer at the highest level, so quickly turn his back on the very civil framework that allowed him to do so?

Usually, the ABC’s job for a royal occasion is to relay the live broadcast, say nothing and fill in some of the lulls with a few specialist historical comments. But what we got instead was a masterclass in bad timing, bad taste and generally bad manners. Can we possibly imagine a panel of commercial TV commentators calling into question the relevance of welcomes to country?

Every nation on earth has its own moments of glory and shame – that’s what history is – but we need to maintain a sense of perspective and humility when witnessing a historic occasion, especially one that is perpetuating the social framework that has made Terra Australis such an enviable destination over the years.

Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn, Vic

I can understand that in the distant past it was necessary and even worthwhile to have a publicly funded national broadcaster. But now, with the proliferation of free and paid-for media outlets and broadcasters, why do I need to be taxed to pay for a broadcaster that I never watch or listen to? A billion dollars a year is not small change. Let those who want to watch the ABC pay for the privilege. Personally, I like many others and I would be happy to opt out.

Alexander Haege, Tamarama, NSW

After the shameful and one-sided ABC coverage of the coronation last Saturday, I think it’s time to show some form of protest. Since it costs taxpayers more than $1bn a year to fund this blatantly biased institution, I suggest that all those who think likewise deduct $57 (based on around 17.5 million taxpayers) from their next annual tax payment.

John Kostanic, Applecross, WA

Voice and recognition

It is a pity that Peter Dutton’s opposition is just saying No to the voice and not offering any viable plan B if it fails. Failure would check the pathway to reconciliation and do nothing to accelerate “closing the gap” in remote First Nations settlements.

This is the key concern of mainstream Australians, but only a side promise of the voice. The mounting concern by voters over the gap is driven by the Third World living conditions and civil strife regularly seen on TV.

Ted Mouritz, Toorak, Vic

I think two very important and relevant questions every voter should be asking the Albanese government before voting at the upcoming voice referendum include: how is the voice going to fix the Indigenous people’s addiction to alcohol, and how will it overcome their obvious total lack of parental control? As I believe they are the main drivers behind the high incarceration rate among the Indigenous community, voters have a right to know before they commit themselves to a Yes or No vote.

If the Albanese government persists in its obfuscation, people remain unsure.

Mario Stivala, Belconnen, ACT

Why do we need the voice when we have the National Indigenous Australians Agency, whose mandate is already in place to do precisely what the voice is purported to do if it comes into being? The NIAA is already funded to the tune of $2bn annually and I see no need to duplicate an already well-organised and well-funded group.

John Heugh, Perth

I am still troubled by the compelling magazine article on Noel Pearson by Troy Bramston in The Weekend Australian Magazine (“Pearson rues former PMs’ missteps”, 28/4). It is widely acknowledged that Pearson has achieved impressive results steering young Aboriginal men and women. He has used his advocacy to great effect, winning academics, politicians and others to the voice for constitutional change.

What bothers me is that his pitch for constitutional change promotes an “our people” race-based model that is at odds with the democracy that is the foundation of our system of government. Paradoxically, not long ago he was on record as contending that race should not matter.

He brands as “redneck” or “racist” anyone who disagrees with the voice. His main argument in support of the voice is that those behind the Uluru Statement think it is a good idea. But they seem to believe the cure for the perceived problems is more bureaucracy. Surely the solution to helping disadvantaged Indigenous people in engaging positively with the wider community is more local initiatives. More of what Pearson has already shown will deliver results.

Clif Barker, Wahroonga, NSW