Register - WIN a $10,000 Safari | Login

How Howard lost the culture wars

June 22, 2004

Sure, the ABC board is full of Howard appointees. But the staff still run the ABC, writes Gerard Henderson.

The ABC is in the news again - with the activities of ABC board members, executives and journalists being reported on the public broadcaster and elsewhere. Last week's resignation of businessman Maurice Newman as ABC deputy chairman has again opened up issues about alleged bias within ABC programming, along with the organisation's corporate governance.

If Labor wins the imminent federal election, this may not matter much to the ABC. But if the Coalition is returned for a fourth term, the tense relationships between broadcaster and the national government (which funds it) seems destined to continue unabated. Such a scenario would not be of benefit to supporters of public broadcasting in Australia.

After its election in March 1996, the Howard Government called for two essential changes to the ABC - one concerning content, the other turning on process. In an interview with journalist Peter Cole-Adams in July 1996, the Prime Minister commented: "I think one of the weaknesses of the ABC is that it doesn't have a right-wing Phillip Adams. I think that would be a good idea. It would make a lot of people feel things were better."

Advertisement Advertisement

The terminology was unwise in that it implied that, to counter a prevailing leftism within the public broadcaster, it would be necessary to engage someone from the "right wing". The Prime Minister did not seem to understand that, among the intelligentsia, the label "right wing" is a term of abuse. In addition, the comment gave too much attention to Adams.

Yet Howard's intentions were laudable and of potential benefit to the ABC. In fact, he was calling for greater pluralism among the public broadcaster's presenters, journalists and producers. Last month the ABC proudly announced that Sydney-based commentator and publisher Michael Duffy had been given a one-hour slot at Radio National each week.

If the Howard Government is defeated, it will leave behind a public broadcaster that is no better now than in 1996.

Duffy is no predictable right-winger and he rejects the label "conservative". It is difficult to see how the appointment of Duffy - nearly a decade after Howard called for greater pluralism within the national broadcaster - can alter the perception that the ABC has a host of leftist or liberal presenters - including Adams, Terry Lane, Sandy McCutcheon, David Marr and George Negus.

During his time as communications minister, Richard Alston focused on process. He called for changes to the ABC's complaints procedures. This was strongly resisted by journalists and producers alike.

It would have been easy for the ABC to grant Howard and Alston their wishes - without any deleterious effect on the national broadcaster. Indeed, both suggestions - if implemented - would have improved the organisation.

The Howard Government has been surprisingly successful in implementing its economic and social agenda, despite not having a majority in the Senate. However, it has failed in what are sometimes referred to as the "culture wars". David Flint proved counter-productive as head of the Australian Broadcasting Authority. And, whatever his intentions, ABC chairman Donald McDonald has not presided over a significant reform of the organisation.

Sure, the Howard Government has appointed all members of the ABC board apart from the staff-elected representative (Romana Koval). But the board does not run the ABC. Its key role is to appoint the managing director - at present Russell Balding. Irrespective of his talents as a manager and accountant, Balding does not have the intellectual firepower to prevail over, say, Adams or Marr. It is the staff, rather than management, who effectively control the public broadcaster.

The latest (self-induced) controversy provides a case study. Koval was the only board member to object to a Newman proposal that the ABC's political coverage be monitored by an outside organisation from the budget until the election. She expressed her objections in an email to Balding. Subsequently, a copy was leaked to Media Watch, whose presenter, David Marr, took the opportunity to ridicule the project, declaring that "the hunt for ABC bias" is "the 'Tassie tiger' of broadcasting". Meaning it does not exist.

Talk about over-reaction. It is difficult to see what harm Newman's proposal can do to the ABC. After all, the ABC has never favoured one party over another in the lead-up to an election. As one-time leftist Douglas Kirsner has pointed out, "for decades ABC journalists have been to the left of any of the parties in government and have been critical of both sides from that perspective". Just ask former Labor PMs Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. Or read the post-ABC confessions of such presenters as Bill Peach and Stuart Littlemore.

In the event, Newman resigned as deputy chairman after Koval's refusal to sign a code of boardroom conduct. The staff-elected director has declined to say whether she leaked her email to Marr. Koval's responses to queries concerning this issue last Thursday, when interviewed by Tanya Nolan on PM, were so hesitant that they are twice prefaced by the term "silence" in the official ABC transcript.

If the Howard Government is defeated at the election, it will have left behind a public broadcaster that is no better now than it was in 1996. Indeed, it could be argued that the Hawke government oversaw more significant cultural change at the public broadcaster than did the Coalition. Which explains why the ABC's coverage of the second Gulf war was more balanced than during the first Gulf war a decade earlier.

However, if the Howard Government is re-elected, it is evident that the criticisms of the organisation's leftist orthodoxy and inadequate complaints procedures will extend to a consideration of the ABC's dysfunctional board structure.

Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.