The Mocker’s ABC: stars align at Planet Aunty

Media Watch host Paul Barry; ABC managing director Michelle Guthrie and, below right, Andrew Probyn.

Not even a year ago Media Watch host Paul Barry was castigating the government and the One Nation Party for their attempted reforms of the ABC. Among these were a proposed legislative amendment for the organisation to be “fair and balanced”, and the public disclosure, together with salaries, of the names of staff who earned over $200,000 per year. This, claimed Barry, amounted to “bashing the ABC”.

Imposing such measures was “ridiculous” said Barry, pointing out that legislation already required the ABC to be “accurate and impartial”. The requirement to canvass opposing views would “doubtless be demanded on climate science, where deniers of man-made global warming would, in One Nation’s view, also need to be given equal weight.”

“Perhaps also on whether the world is flat,” he sneered. That he resorted to a simplistic dichotomy in characterising the debate on climate change, together with equating ‘deniers’ with flat earthers, is revealing. You will never hear Barry apply such a term to those in the ABC who stubbornly insist, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that the organisation does not have a culture of systemic bias towards the left.

Let’s examine a couple of examples only this week. On Monday, The Drum featured a panel comprising Sydney Morning Herald political and international editor Peter Hartcher, finance executive Ayten Saridas, Guardian columnist Van Badham, and Dr Ian Wilson of Murdoch University. It discussed a series of bombings, including the targeting of three Christian churches on Sunday in Surabaya, Indonesia, by Islamic fundamentalists. Saridas, a Muslim who had worked in Indonesia, was asked by host Ellen Fanning whether the bombings represented a radicalisation of religion in Indonesia.

“It’s a very moderate country”, replied Saridas. “It’s very secular.” That must be news to a former governor of Jakarta, Basuki Tjahaja ‘Ahok’ Purnama, a Christian who last May was sentenced to two years imprisonment for blasphemy. And presumably Saridas has never heard of Aceh, the province which has the highest proportion of Muslims in Indonesia, which routinely canes and imprisons its citizens for violating sharia law. In fairness to Saridas, just last month Aceh’s governor, Irwandi Yusuf, announced reforms following pressure from human rights groups. Instead of being caned outdoors, violators will now be caned indoors. Spectators are still allowed to watch these barbaric punishments, but they will no longer be permitted to film them. Very moderate and secular, wouldn’t you say?

If that did not warrant Fanning’s interjecting, then Saridas’s next assertion certainly did. “This is not about our religion, she said serenely. “Our religion is a religion of faith at the – of peace – at the end of the day.”

“This is not about our religion. Our religion is a religion of peace. This radicalisation comes from a very different place than just the fact that Indonesia happens to be an Islamic country” @Aytenhaydar1 on the bombing attacks in Indonesia #TheDrum pic.twitter.com/aPdQZ6GoG2

— ABC The Drum (@ABCthedrum) May 14, 2018

Freudian slip? As for Islam being a religion of peace, that claim is no longer a glib public relations line, nor a trite platitude. It is a passive aggressive obtuseness, an extended finger to a craven Western society obsessed with indulging and placating minorities. As with all propaganda, it derives strength not through persuasion but by imposing an orthodoxy that few in the commentariat will question. Unsurprisingly, neither Fanning nor Saridas’s co-panellists took issue with her statement.

Consider some of the other Islamic apologist perspectives the show has featured. “Does the Orlando shooting need to be defined by the attacker’s religion,” it postulated in 2016 following the murder of 49 people by Afghan-American and Muslim Omar Mateen, who had sworn loyalty to ISIL before the attack.

Does the #Orlando shooting need to be defined by the attacker’s religion? #TheDrum #Islamhttps://t.co/VoKz4QIrve

— ABC The Drum (@ABCthedrum) June 13, 2016

What about subjects like “Islamophobia, not Islam, is the real threat,” or “Are we too quick to link attacks to radical Islam? The Drum? More like The Drone. What was Barry saying about giving airtime to those who maintain the world is flat?”

Are we too quick to link attacks to radical #Islam? #TheDrum #Germany pic.twitter.com/GsmMPrzrcj

— ABC The Drum (@ABCthedrum) July 19, 2016

If you listened to ABC’s AM program on Tuesday you would have heard national education reporter Natasha Robinson’s segment about this week’s NAPLAN (National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy) tests. “It’s always been a controversial assessment but never more so than right now,” she said, prior to giving numerous critics a platform. What followed was an entirely negative portrayal of NAPLAN, which is designed to give an indication of individual schools’ and students’ performance, and is strongly opposed by the left-leaning teachers’ unions.

However, Robinson failed to mention a report by the Centre for Independent Studies released on Monday which found that the benefits of NAPLAN exceed the perceived negatives. Both The Australian and the Australian Financial Reviewgave wide coverage to the CIS report the previous day. What are the chances of Media Watch criticising Robinson and AM when its host scornfully dismisses calls for the ABC to be “fair and balanced”?

On May 1 the Australian Communications and Media Authority found the ABC’s political editor, Andrew Probyn, had breached impartiality standards. Reporting on ABC News last October, he had labelled former prime minister Tony Abbott as “the most destructive politician of his generation”. The statement was, said ACMA, “judgmental”, and one that an ordinary reasonable viewer would perceive as “pejorative”.

An ordinary reasonable person would also conclude that the ABC was obliged, at the very least, to report the ACMA finding. As Barry previously noted, it has a statutory obligation to be “accurate and impartial”. In a display of petulance and arrogance, it did not do so. It was not until May 7 that Barry conceded the lapse. “The ABC hasn’t even bothered to report the ACMA finding,” he said. “Which it really should have done.”

Should have? This is the language of mild admonishment. Why did Media Watch, as it normally does with other organisations, not seek a written explanation from managing director Michelle Guthrie and news director Gaven Morris? Merely chiding the organisation plays down the seriousness of the matter. First, the political editor has one of the highest profiles in the ABC, and the organisation’s reputation as an impartial news service depends significantly on the performance of the incumbent. Probyn has compromised this. Second, the ABC’s internal complaint process rejected the initial complaint, despite what was obviously a breach of editorial policies. Third, in failing to report the ACMA findings, the ABC has not only demonstrated a contempt for accountability, but has also vindicated its critics.

This is not a case of Probyn acting out of character. Last August, when senator Pauline Hanson donned a burka in the Senate chambers, his reporting was emotional, shrill, and exaggerated. “What Pauline Hanson did today was despicable and shameful, with the cheapest of stunts she vilified a section of our community, he said. “Worse, she risked inciting hatred against vulnerable women.”

So much for the ABC’s requirement that its journalists “Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.” Why then does he act in flagrant contravention of these policies?

Put simply, Probyn knows the ABC collective will applaud his actions. There will be little in the way of consequences; in fact, management may even reward him with one of the many generous taxpayer-funded bonuses it regularly bestows on staff. Have you heard anything from Guthrie about the failure to report ACMA’s findings? She has been vocal of late, but only in telling staff she would oppose the government’s decision to freeze the ABC’s budget at $3.16 billion from July 1 next year for three years. “In the coming year Australians will head to the polls for the next federal election. More than 80 per cent of Australians value the ABC, a point that should not be lost on anyone seeking government,” she told staff last week via video link. Like her predecessor Mark Scott, she sounds less like a managing director and more like the shop steward.

Rather than obsessing with de-platforming the so-called climate denialists, the likes of Barry and Guthrie should concentrate on reducing the obnoxious emissions of the Charter denialists. There must be no questioning this, for the social science is settled. Entrusted with the valuable but finite resources that exist for the common good, these hubristic and privileged types have long exploited them for self-interest.

Their continued failure to address a culture of arrogance and self-indulgence will ultimately have catastrophic – and perhaps permanent – repercussions for Planet Aunty.