You too were aghast, I am sure, to learn this week that the ABC is part of the plot to nobble the Yes campaign in the upcoming Indigenous voice to parliament referendum. Far from being the avant-garde of progressive virtue we believed it to be, it has been usurped by reactionaries to reinforce colonial hegemony.
The ramifications are alarming. Until a few days ago the national broadcaster – at least according to its communications department, social media, and other sources of incontrovertible facts – was our most trusted institution. I fear now that associated entities such as the Friends of the ABC run cover for the many neo-fascist groups based in Sydney’s Lower North Shore.
Horrific as this discovery is, we must extend our gratitude to the esteemed Professor Megan Davis, Referendum Working Group member, Cobble Cobble woman, and University of NSW pro-vice chancellor, for this compelling example of truth-telling.
“It’s astonishing to me that the ABC Insiders show has Warren Mundine on this morning,” she declared to her 12,000-plus followers in a subsequently deleted post on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, on Sunday. “Jacinta [Nampijinpa Price] at NPC [National Press Club], Kerrynne Liddle on 7.30 report. The shemozzle of 4 Corners. ABC just continually platforms the NO campaign.”
Her many supporters joined in, and Davis busied herself reposting their contributions, including other measured observations such as “There is an obvious editorial directive here,” and “MD [managing director] and news director need to be questioned,” along with “ABC’s blatant obvious campaign against YES is worrying.”
It all makes sense now. This is why you hardly see or hear pro-voice campaigners on ABC. Aunty treats them with contempt and barely acknowledges their existence. Aside, of course, from Australian Story featuring a 30-minute episode in June titled The making of Megan Davis and the historic voice referendum.
But that is the only exception. Apart, that is, from the ABC’s providing video and footage for the Yes campaign’s John Farnham You’re the Voice advertisement, despite this contravening the broadcaster’s rules.
Admittedly there was also the decision by RMIT ABC’s Fact Check to label “false information”, and in collaboration with Facebook’s parent company, Meta, censor Sky News presenter and Australian columnist Peta Credlin’s revelation that the Uluru Statement is 26 pages long and includes demands for taxpayer-funded reparations and a percentage of GDP.
You may have heard of a book by Davis’s fellow working group member Thomas Mayo, The Voice to Parliament Handbook: All the Detail You Need, co-authored with former ABC journalist Kerry O’Brien. RN Breakfast host Patricia Karvelas provided a promotional endorsement for it, as did Drum co-host and voice referendum correspondent Dan Bourchier. So too did 7.30 political correspondent Laura Tingle, who in her endorsement, described the Uluru Statement as a “truly transformational gift … if only we take it”.
In one respect former BBC broadcaster Andrew Neil would agree with Davis’s claim of bias. Appearing on Q+A on April 10, during which the referendum was discussed, he expressed bewilderment over the show’s failure to feature a single panellist for the negative. “Where is the strong voice tonight in favour of voting against the voice,” he asked rhetorically. “I haven’t seen it.”
And let’s not forget that in February, ABC management was forced to hold “impartiality” sessions for employees regarding the referendum coverage and the need to be objective. Presumably this was because of the swathe of Vote No posters in the corridors and canteens of Ultimo and South Melbourne, I take it?
Turn it up. Should the referendum proposal fail, the government will have to double the ABC’s annual budget to provide for mass grievance counselling. As for Davis’s alarmist and petulant outburst, someone should explain to this constitutional law expert the obligations of ABC’s statutory charter, particularly that which requires its broadcasting reflect the diversity of the Australian community. Dreadful as it must be for Davis to accept, that would by implication include the perspectives of No campaigners.
Ironically, Davis herself earlier warned that “misinformation” and “disinformation” could undermine public discussion about the Voice. In February the Fin Review reported she “was concerned about poor quality information spreading on social media and in news reports, as well as targeting of supporters of the proposed Indigenous consultative body”. Do tell, professor.
Earlier this month she not only accused the No campaign of “Trumpian misinformation” but also criticised mainstream media and Facebook for highlighting its allegedly inaccurate claims. This she had earlier attributed to so-called media “bothsidesism”, otherwise known as false balance. But in Davis’s case, her condemnation of the practice appears less about ensuring journalistic scrutiny and more about her controlling what the media reports.
Lamenting last month the inroads the No campaign had made, she claimed voters’ decision-making would suffer. “Australians aren’t getting the information they need to have a fully informed vote,” she told the ABC.
Good point. If only the Albanese government had subsidised the Yes and No campaigns as was done for the republic referendum in 1999. But as this masthead reported in February, Davis opposed such a move, claiming it “would be a waste of taxpayers’ money”.
And for a scholar who loudly decries the logical fallacies of her opponents, Davis is quick to employ a few of her own. In February she castigated Universities Australia for deciding not to collectively back the Voice, saying “Silence is political” and that this stance amounted to “False objectivity”. In other words, you are either with us or against us.
Writing earlier this month the Voice would empower Indigenous women and girls in remote communities and break the cycle of violence and poverty, Davis impugned the motives of those unconvinced the solution is constitutional change. “A vote for Yes will be an investment in the voices of our women in communities to be at the table. A vote for No is an endorsement of the status quo,” she said. To imply that No voters condone the endemic abuse of women and girls in Indigenous communities is not only grossly offensive, but also preposterous.
Davis can make all the accusations she wants about why this referendum proposal is fast heading south, but that does not change the fact that she and her fellow working group members share responsibility for its direction. Her performance has been wanting, but this is hardly surprising.
As a minority activist in the cloistered world of academia, Davis is accustomed to being told by her peers she is amazingly brilliant and incredibly articulate. Her usual audience comprises likeminded individuals who applaud her loudly and constantly. All very well, but this environment fosters complacency and overconfidence.
Swap the adoring audience for one that vigorously challenges your arguments, and you will quickly become rattled and defensive.
Being pampered and feted also leads to entitlement and arrogance, as Davis has demonstrated with her recent tantrum. Contrary to her expectations, many Australians are not persuaded by platitudes or emotional hectoring. If she is to convince the undecided that the Constitution should be changed, she must employ logic to stress the connection between the proposal and the outcome.
She cannot achieve this by angrily blaming the other side and the media for the Yes campaign’s shortcomings. To put it bluntly, Davis needs to behave more like a professor and less like a princess.
More Coverage
Work needed on PS productivity
While our political leaders no doubt are focused on the potential for interest rate relief before the federal election, they should instead be preoccupied with how to lift productivity and grow the economy.
Secrecy has been a big part of problem in terror fight
Much of the concern about the rise of anti-Semitic actions is due to too much secrecy and lack of demonstrated concern, for which politicians and police must share responsibility.