Ian Carroll 1946 - 2011

Until quite late in the 20th century, it was fashionable to deride the ABC as a sheltered workshop, hidebound by public service rules and red tape, the home of engineers in grey cardigans, and workaday journalists content to bring up the rear. You seldom hear such things said today, and that is due in no small measure to the life’s work of Ian Carroll.

From his ground-breaking leadership of Nationwide, Lateline and the national 7.30 Report in the 80s and 90s, to his shepherding of the ABC into the multi-channel, digital world of the 21st century, Ian Carroll always managed to place himself where the next new thing was happening at the national broadcaster. His energy, omnivorous curiosity, and optimism never flagged. And in an organisation where respect doesn’t necessarily come with the job, few senior executives have inspired more loyalty, trust, and affection.

Ian Robert Carroll was born on November 17, 1946, in Melbourne, to Bob Carroll and his wife Judy. The oldest of three boys, he was educated at Carey Grammar School. It was clear from early on that he was going to be a journalist. He joined The Age as a cadet in 1965, and was soon combining industrial and political rounds with study for an arts degree at Monash. At uni he met his first wife Jill. They married in 1966, when Ian was only 20.
His BA secured, Ian and Jill took off for the traditional trip to Europe. He returned three years later, not to newspapers, but to the medium that would be his passion for the next three decades, television.

After two years with Nine news in Melbourne, and another two with the current affairs program Willesee at Seven, he was hired by the ABC to head the Melbourne bureau of a new national nightly current affairs program, Nationwide. In 1981, he moved to Sydney to become the program’s executive producer.
As well as a new EP, Nationwide acquired a new national presenter in 1981, a stunning and fiercely intelligent young woman from Western Australia, Geraldine Doogue.

The move to Sydney meant that Ian could no longer follow his beloved Collingwood with the required devotion. He switched allegiance to the Swans, and fed his footy mania by taking part in at least three tipping competitions, which occupied him every Friday night for the rest of his life.

In 1985 Carroll was put in charge of a bold new adventure for ABC News and Current Affairs. The two genres were to be combined in a single hour-long program, broadcast nightly across the nation: The National, to be presented by Doogue and Sydney newsreader, Richard Morecroft. It was launched with massive hype.

The National had solid support across the Corporation – until its failure became manifest. The 6.30 time slot alienated ABC viewers. The attempt to overturn the staid conventions of TV news was ahead of its time. And as audiences turned their backs, so did the ABC hierarchy. The program, suddenly, was all Ian Carroll’s fault.
In retrospect, most acknowledge that The National rejuvenated ABC Television News, and forced the ABC to understand and to make use of technical innovations that it had been ignoring for years. But for the while, both Carroll and Doogue were embarrassments. Both left the ABC, Ian to take over Nine’s Today program, Doogue rather later, first to 2UE and then to Ten’s Eyewitness News.

But they left together, not separately. As The National crashed, a romance had bloomed. Not without pain and anguish, for both had existing marriages and children, Ian Carroll and Geraldine Doogue became one of the more formidable pairings in the media world. They married in 1987, and have been soul-mates ever since.

But by 1989, both Ian and Geraldine were back at the ABC. With his chosen presenter, the red-haired, green-penned Kerry O’Brien, Carroll launched into yet another bold experiment: a late night national program that would make use of the newly-affordable global satellite network to discuss the issue of the day with the best brains across the world. Lateline’s audience was never huge, but its influence was profound. ‘‘Ian’s restless intellect, boundless curiosity and enthusiasm for the big ideas,’’ says Kerry O’Brien, ‘‘brought new depth to late night television.’’

At the same time, Carroll revolutionised the television coverage of elections, with the help of wonkish systems expert Anthony Green. The ABC’s election specials, replete with vivid graphics generated by computer, led the way that Nine and others were forced to follow.
Through the nineties, Ian headed 4 Corners, a new national version of The 7.30 Report, and then modernised the manning and equipping of television news. By the end of the decade, he had immersed himself in the new digital age – and was urging the ABC to do so too.

In 2001, the it took him at his word. He was put in charge of its first two digital TV channels: ABC for Kids and Fly. But only a tiny fraction of homes at that time could access the services and the ABC had received no additional funding to support them. In 2003, budget constraints saw the services axed. Once again, Ian had been ahead of the times. Only seven years later, the ABC would have three new digital television channels on air – including one targeting children –part of a widespread national adoption of free-to-air multichannel services.

Then, for three years, Carroll helped to run the ABC’s overseas television service, ABC Asia-Pacific. In 2005, he was appointed CEO of a rebranded Australia Network.
In 2007, Ian landed his dream job: Director of ABC Innovation, responsible for all the ABC’s online operations. It drew on all of his experience – and indeed on his ability to lead in fields where he had no experience at all. He got the sometimes siloed and isolationist ABC content divisions working together around a shared online strategy. Three achievements for audiences stand out: the development of iView, Australia’s online catch-up television service; embracing mobile technology with quality apps for the iPhone and iPad; and the overhaul of the entire ABC website.

Ian Carroll was finally where he’d wanted to be for more than a decade – at the ABC’s Senior Executive table. His passionate advocacy of investment in new programming initiatives was tempered by a deep understanding of corporate history and culture. When he was on extended sick leave last year, ABC executives made pilgrimages to his home to seek his advice.
Earlier this month, when his advancing cancer finally forced him to step down, hundreds of colleagues attended a farewell celebration of Ian Carroll’s remarkable career. He sat on a stool and spoke for 30 minutes about the lessons he had learned from his successes, and his disappointments; honest, self-deprecating, funny, wise. The man who had produced so much for viewers, over decades, sat finally in the spotlight himself. No one who was there will ever forget it.

Ian Carroll is survived by his brothers Andrew and Peter, his wife Geraldine Doogue, their son Sam, his first wife Jill and their two children Michael and Genevieve, and by his stepdaughter, ABC reporter Eliza Blue.

Jonathan Holmes and Mark Scott

The Australian Constitution and the ABC - educating the nation

I participated in an ABC program recently, conducted by the Law Report Presenter Damian Carrick, about the Constitution. It first took the form of a Competition, asking people to say in 50 words if the current Constitution was still a blueprint for the future and a living document, or something else. The response was disappointing, at least going by the people who were declared winners (10). The competition was followed by Constitution Day in Canberra (9th July) at which four high profile speakers were invited to given their view on the Constitution. The leading speaker was Constitutional Law Professor Greg Craven, Vice Chancellor of the Catholic University, an eloquent and humorous speaker, but one with a deeply conservative and misguided message. In particular he rejected the idea that the federal structure of states should be replaced. Then there were two activist intellectuals with particular hobbyhorses for change: former High Court judge Michael Kirby (Human Rights) and Law Professor Larissa Berendt (Indigenous Affairs). Former WA Premier, Federal MP and now Hon. Professor Carmen Lawrence acknowledged that the Constitution had to be updated, and cautiously questioned the federal structure without presenting a strong case for renewal. A Blog was started to allow people to comment on their contributions. Only 25 people provided comments, many favouring considerable change.

While it was certainly encouraging that the topic of the Constitution was taken up by the ABC, by and large this has been an opportunity lost.

What was missing here is a realisation that we cannot have another 100 years of futile piecemeal tinkering with a Constitution, that is already frozen and archaic. This was first acknowledged by Professor Gordon Greenwood in 1942, then by Professor Geoffrey Sawer in 1967, then by P.M. Geoff Whitlam in 1975, and in 1977 by Donald Horne in a little book entitled Change the Rules, favouring major constitutional change. To his credit, in 1977 Prime Minister Fraser got one amendment through to eliminate the possibility of filling casual Senate vacancies with political appointments (by hostile state Governments), which had made the sacking of the Whitlam Government possible. Since 1977, that is now 33 years ago, absolutely nothing else has changed. Regrettably, well known Constitutional Law experts like Professors Cheryl Saunders, Helen Irving and George Williams were not speakers at this Forum.

Where changes have been effected they mostly result from a few High Court Judges "creatively interpreting" what the Founding Fathers may have meant in the late 1890s. Thus, the Work Choices legislation became law because of their interpretation of the Corporations' Power. Such changes are not necessarily progressive. In fact, often not. Earlier High Court judgments blocked attempts to get rid of the compulsory preferencing of ballot papers in federal elections.

There is no realisation that, quite apart from the most unhelpful rigidity of section 128, the preferential electoral system itself (based on single member districts) has made it virtually impossible to get amendments through. It has created our two party domination of the legislature. Given that only politicians have the power of initiative of calling constitutional referendums - and that the major parties need to agree to get a majority of voters on side in four of six states - chances of updating the Constitution are virtually non-existent. Therefore, further piecemeal tinkering is a very poor strategy in the light of 110 years experience.

The Competition posited the following introductory statement:
The Constitution is a living document but does it still define Australia and what it means to be Australian? Tell us—in 50 words or less—whether you think our Constitution is still the nation’s blueprint to guide us through the 21st century. Make it quirky, make it fun, rhyme it, rap it, tell it straight. Constitution Day: Have Your Say.

It is nonsense to suggest that it is a "living document". It hasn't been for a very long time. How could anyone even suggest that this document could still be a blueprint for guiding Australia through the 21st century? This means that the organisers are inviting conservative views to be expressed, possibly rewarded with a prize. Indeed the winning entry was in that vain. Should this be a quirky, or fun exercise, a rap? No, this is a very serious issue.

Horne, in 1977, provided "five telling examples of how operations of our Constitution could be extremely disruptive of our normal traditions of peaceful politics". Yes, there seems to be no realisation that Australia's Constitution could well be like a seemingly sound brick veneer house of which the timber frame is being white-anted. Troubled federal-state relations, the Murray-Darling basin conundrum, the hung Parliament, clogged major cities, regional underdevelopment, health policies and funding are indicative issues camouflaged by the resources boom.

The Australian Constitution needs to be rewritten and that task needs to be started as soon as possible. The idea that the Constitution is even capable of being gradually updated is unrealistic. The politicians have given that away after the failed exercise in 1988, following an extensive review of the Constitution. That is what the ABC should adopt as its starting point, and invite speakers in a course of lectures, like the Boyer lectures, and organise panel sessions around that theme. The idea of presenting balance in this effort is half a century too late. There are situations where ABC insistence on "balance" is a total hindrance to achieve progress. The ABC's charter provides scope for educating the public. Education about the Constitution and why it needs to be rewritten is long overdue. There are also major problems with Governance in a broader sense; the recent election outcome has demonstrated that. This is not covered by the ABC's "Current Affairs" sessions at all. These programs deal with issues and events within existing Governance perimeters, including the Constitution. Australia needs to get on with questioning its governance systems. That is a quite different proposition.

Dr. Klaas Woldring,
Central Coast Branch FABC.

Latest News on Hope in a Slingshot

I am sorry to report that Hope in a Slingshot will not be broadcast on the ABC TV. Its been a long road, and although we lost prima facia, we did not lose entirely.

The official word, given at the Senate Estimates the second time Senator Scott Ludlam brought it up, is that the film was re reviewed and it was not considered ‘compelling’ enough. Of course that is subjective and in light that it initially was considered ‘compelling’ enough – nothing was addressed. They have given up on giving us reasons! Communication with them has been impossible during this time. No emails were ever responded, there was no heads up that they were re reviewing. There is a more polished and updated version that they never asked to see. This information is for all of you who suggested that we discuss matters with the ABC. Please understand that the barest of communication was impossible. Discussion was not an option.

What is important to realize is that in the history of the ABC – according to the director of Ronin Films, Andrew Pike, who has been working in the industry for 35 years – a film has never been accepted by the ABC and then formally rejected afterwards. This is a first. A first - all time low for the ABC. They have not fooled anyone smarter than a brick. Their reasons are political and have little to do with truth in journalism or balance as we all can tell after the airing of Collision Course, the BBC piece from Panorama.

The future of how one can view Hope in a Slingshot is unclear. The only way currently is to buy a DVD from Ronin Films who are distributing it.

We would like to encourage schools to purchase this film. A few students from Swinburne wrote to me to show their appreciation for it as their teacher had showed it for their exam revision. Its a very good teaching tool if I say so myself! (a study guide is available).

Inka Stafrace
Polly Tikkle Productions
Australia/Malta
www.pollytikkle.com

ABC to tender for Australia Network

ABC Managing Director Mark Scott today welcomed the government's announcement to open the tender for the contract to run Australia Network, announced by the Minister for Foreign Affairs the Hon. Kevin Rudd today.

Mr Scott said he welcomed the opportunity to bid for the continuation of the contract currently being serviced by the ABC for the last ten years.

“The ABC takes great pride in the role Australia Network plays in increasing the awareness of Australia and Australian perspectives across the Asia Pacific region,” Mr Scott said.

“We look forward to highlighting the important achievements of Australia Network over the last decade – bringing its mix of news, current affairs, education, lifestyle, drama and sport to more than 20 million homes across Asia, the Pacific and the Indian sub-continent.

“During this tender process we will also take the opportunity to identify some of the areas where we believe the service can expand, while demonstrating the ABC’s distinguished 70 year record in international broadcasting which forms part of our charter.

“We also welcome the government’s decision to extend the duration of the contract from five to ten years. This will allow a continuation of service delivery through established business partnerships in this highly-competitive, fast changing environment that will ensure the continued strength of the network.”

President's Report - June 2010

Friends of the ABC warmly congratulates pioneering science broadcaster Peter Pockley on the high honour bestowed on him recently by the Australian Academy of Science – the award of its medal.

Robyn Williams, current writer and presenter of The Science Show has written a wonderful tribute to Peter and the vital work that he did in placing the ABC Science Unit at the forefront of science broadcasting throughout the world, and we are reminded of his memorable live broadcast in 1969 of the first landing on the moon.

The Governor General, Quentin Bryce, presented Peter with his medal and spoke of the pivotal role that he played in educating us all about science [more]

THE CHALLENGE OF BALANCED REPORTING of the ISRAELI/ PALESTINIAN CONFLICT
Joan Michie, a former editor of “News and Views”, the predecessor of Update, has expressed her concern at the inadequacies of the process whereby complaints against the ABC’s coverage of a particular issue are investigated by the Independent Complaints Review Panel (see her letter in the March Update.)

Joan’s original complaint concerned lack of balance in the ABC’s coverage of the Gaza conflict in December 2008/ January 2009, mainly the failure to adequately cover the Palestinian viewpoint. The full text of the I.C.R.P. report may be found on the FABC website, along with Joan Michie’s reply.

A perusal of this correspondence does suggest that the process is unsatisfactory in its current form, and rather substantiates Joan’s concern.

Andrew Pike, Managing Director of Ronin Films, an Australian company based in Canberra, writes in this edition of Update of the withdrawal by the ABC of a formal offer to acquire and (presumably) broadcast a documentary about the Palestinian situation, “Hope in a Slingshot”.

Andrew puts a very strong case that the documentary is pro-peace rather than pro-Palestinian, taking testimony from Israelis and Palestinians expressing their hopes and aspirations for peace in the region.

My inquiry to Mark Scott for further information produced the following reply from Michael Millett, ABC Communications Director:

“I am able to confirm that ABC TV was uneasy with the partisan nature of the documentary, and its inability at that time to find something to counterbalance (see Editorial Policy – The ABC is committed to impartiality and must demonstrate this through the presentation of a diversity of perspectives. This requires a diversity of perspectives to be demonstrated across a network or platform by providing content of a similar type and weight in an appropriate time-frame.) ABC TV is now reviewing the initial rejection to see whether it can find something to air as a counter balance.”

There is no doubt that the Israeli government has an array of well rained spokespersons, and unlimited resources, instantly available to put the Israeli government point of view on any matter.

I write this late on the night we learned of the Israeli army attack, in international waters, on the relief convoy taking food medical supplies to Gaza. Predictably, there was the well-prepared Israeli Government representative putting their version of events to Kerry O’Brien on the 7.30 Report, but where was the interview with a spokesperson for the other side?

It was surely a situation which demanded that we hear both sides, and absurd to imagine that such a representative could not have been found.

It was Joan Michie’s complaint regarding coverage of the Gaza conflict that too often we only heard the Israeli point of view. Roger Raven, reporting elsewhere in the June 2010 Update, refers to the 2006 study of the BBC’s Middle-Eastern coverage – “it had a pro-Israeli bias, partly because it was naturally easier to get interviews and moving pictures from the dominant side; indeed the BBC later did a secret deal with Israel for access in return for BBC compliance with Israeli censorship.

” We would like to think that our national broadcaster took a more balanced approach than the BBC, but I think that the jury is still out on that! [more]

MARK SCOTT REPLIES
The ABC Managing Director has written a wide-ranging reply to many of the questions and criticisms on recent ABC decisions and directions which have been expressed in Update and the opinion pages of the daily press.

Mark makes the strong point that the ABC is not a niche broadcaster – quite clearly its charter is to serve the whole population of Australia, in all its social and geographic diversity [more]

Whilst agreeing to differ with the Managing Director on a number of issues (including the axing of The Religion Report!), NSW Friends of the ABC acknowledges that the ABC has a passionate and powerful advocate in Mark Scott, whether talking to government, the broader community, media rivals or the international community, and we appreciate that he has taken the time to contribute to the debate in Update.

As the Federal Government lurches towards another election, it is clear that the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill is going nowhere, although this is more the fault of the Opposition and Senator Fielding than Mr. Rudd’s Labor Government. Should the government retain power and control the Senate (even with the help of the Greens), we will have the long-awaited change to the method of appointing the ABC Board, and the restoration of the staff-elected director. Should Mr. Rudd lose, there is little hope of this reform ever taking place. Consider that as you consider which party will receive your vote.

Mal Hewitt
President FABC (NSW)

Bullying Your ABC

Having satisfactorily completed its role in the dispatch of a prime minister last week, News Limited has redirected its firepower towards another pesky adversary — the left-leaning, incompetent, over-funded ABC and its soon-to-be-launched 24-hour TV news channel.

In its main editorial today, The Australian lays into the ABC’s coverage of the Rudd downfall as the reason to ask “why the ABC should be allowed to take on another taxpayer-funded channel when the corporation plainly cannot manage the ones it already has.

Meanwhile, on the opposite page, the paper’s Janet Albrechtsen has also unleashed on the ABC’s forthcoming news channel. Under the heading ‘Sky shames the ABC’, she asks whether the ABC “has the energy and team spirit that kicks in so readily at its poor cable cousin at Sky?”

No mention, in either of these attacks, of News Corp’s commercial interests — of its stake in Sky News or of its aggressive behind-the-scenes lobbying for Sky to take over the government-funded Australia Network, which beams Australian TV into the Asia-Pacific region and is currently run by the ABC.

What we are watching here is a powerful organisation deploying its journalism to pressure a government into bowing to its commercial agenda, not coincidentally at a time when the government is heading towards an election and needs all the supportive tabloid media coverage it can get.

The ABC is too important to Australia to be kicked around as a pawn in a power game designed to bully the federal government into toeing the News Limited line.

Crikey 2 July 10

Turmoil exposed weaknesses: ABC head

ABC managing director Mark Scott has ordered a review of how the broadcaster handles breaking news across TV and radio.

This comes after he admitted the organisation could have done a better job covering last week's political turmoil in Canberra.

"There were some challenges to breaking news the other night," Mr Scott said yesterday.

"I think there were some communication problems, some issues with the technology and we'll review those protocols. It's inevitable when you have a big new enterprise like that."

The "big new enterprise" is a purpose-built digital play-out centre that will handle all the broadcaster's multi-channels in every city. The MediaHub in western Sydney was opened by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy yesterday.

The multi-million-dollar cutting edge technology, a joint venture with WIN TV, has been blamed by the ABC's Media Watch and the broadcaster's journalists, for the technical glitches on ABC1 last week.

"We should have done better, we'll do better in the future and we've learnt from the experience," Mr Scott said after the opening.

His message yesterday is in stark contrast to an email he sent to ABC staff last Friday when he congratulated ABC staff, saying: "From Wednesday night we were able to showcase the very best of the ABC in action -- on radio, television and online."

It comes after criticism not only from Media Watch but also in The Australian, which yesterday published an article from former ABC director Janet Albrechtsen who wrote that Sky News Australia became the "default national broadcaster" on the night.

Mr Scott rejected any suggestion that Sky News, which provided live coverage after the ABC 7pm news broke the story, did a better job of covering the political events of last Wednesday night.

"Sky did a totally different job on the night," Mr Scott said. "It's an unfair point of comparison frankly. I think a fair point of comparison would be if we had our 24-hour news channel running. You've got to remember the ABC broke the story."

Mr Scott said ABC1 updated throughout the evening, went live to former prime minister Kevin Rudd's press conference, covered the story on Lateline and had the only interview with a cabinet minister.

Crikey 2 July 10

Mark Scott responds to the ABC's Critics

There’s been vigorous debate recently about the role of the ABC – particularly around our latest innovations such as ABC3, ABC Open and ABC News 24.

I see this debate as an acknowledgement of how important the ABC is to Australia’s cultural and civic life. Inevitably of course, some of our critics have either misunderstood or misrepresented our motives.

However I’m in no doubt that the ABC is, in all its new activities, acting just as the public broadcaster should - in the interests of the public.

Friends of the ABC are likely to be far more familiar with the ABC Act and the Charter than most. The Act places certain obligations upon us, and they are particularly relevant to the digital age.

Among them is a demand that we be innovative, and that we ensure we’re providing maximum benefit to the Australian people.

Every move the ABC makes is checked against these founding documents, to ensure that we are meeting the responsiblities they impose both in letter and in spirit. We do not expand for expansion’s sake.

And I’m proud to see how well the ABC is living up to the Charter and the Act, and that we see these obligations as opportunities to build an ABC that’s going to remain absolutely integral to Australian life in the future.

I was invited to speak about this at the recent Commonwealth Broadcasting Association Conference.

As I indicated in that speech, the lightning speed with which new technology is being developed and adopted, the flow-on effects of changing consumer behaviour and expectations and disruptions to the business models for delivery news, information and entertainment are presenting the ABC with big challenges.

Change that would once have occurred within the span of a generation is now experienced in the space of a few years.

This environment makes us seriously consider what we are delivering and how we deliver it. As public broadcasters reliant on the trust and financial support of the public, we look at what services we are uniquely positioned to provide, what our
place in the marketplace is and how we ourselves must change in response to changes that are all around us.

From time to time in Australia there is debate about the ABC’s need to be fair, balanced and impartial. Well, when considering the role of the ABC in Australian life, I am firmly a conservative. At the same time, looking to the future for the public broadcaster, I am a liberal, a progressive.

Being both conservative and progressive means there’s equal opportunity for criticism from both sides. If it seems like a contradiction, it’s one that will enable to the ABC to prosper and survive. As Tancredi said in The Leopard "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change."

Let me explain why I am a conservative on some matters involving the ABC. The Charter and Act that came with the transformation of the ABC into a Corporation in 1983 set out a number of principles that govern our operations.

Considering these were enacted a year before the birth of the inventor of Facebook, those principles remain remarkably robust and relevant to this digital era.

Let me highlight three key principles derived from that enabling legislation that are driving strategy for the future of the ABC.

The first principle is that the ABC is not a niche broadcaster. The Charter asks that we provide content of wide appeal and content that is specialist in nature.

Consequently, we look to engage not only with small communities of interest but to also bring the nation together around content that will generate critical mass.

So ratings do matter to us, but they are not the only thing that matters. In the heart of prime time, we deliver programs on science and religion, arts programs, specialist documentaries, serious news and analysis that would never get a run on commercial free-to-air television.

We have a radio network, Radio National, which devotes most of its airtime to
specialist content.

The ABC’s strength then, as now, came from the diversity of content - both specialist and of wide appeal.

Some of our TV programs can attract 25 percent of the free-to-air audience. Others struggle for a quarter of that. Our Local Radio network can generate four times the audience of some of our specialist radio networks.

But together, side-by-side, these constitute a strong and credible ABC experience that both meets audience needs and has significant impact on Australian thinking, imagination and culture.

By being a broadcaster for all Australians and part of the experience of all Australians, a connection with the Australian people has been created and it has continued across generations. This connection has been key to our ongoing financial support from Canberra. It means that on content such as news and current affairs, like our popular authentically local radio network, the ABC has become a place where Australians come together to listen to one another, to assess and discuss the great issues of the day.

A shared space for the nation. A commons in an increasingly fragmented world.

Whether popular or specialist, what the ABC delivers is trusted, distinctive and of quality. And Australians turn to the ABC confident that they will find content that embodies these values, that has passed the test of quality and distinctiveness.

The second principle from the ABC Charter that guides us is that the ABC should, when making content decisions, take account of what is being offered by commercial and community broadcasters. As you can see, there’s a direct link to the first principle about widely appealing and specialist content.

There are now new and extreme pressures on commercial media, and because there are, it’s been suggested that certain markets today should be serviced exclusively by commercial broadcasters with neither contribution nor competition from the public broadcaster. Australian civic and cultural life would be poorer for this.

James Murdoch in last year’s MacTaggart lecture gave us News Corporation’s Head Office view on this. Attacking the BBC, Mr Murdoch said public sector broadcasters should vacate key areas of service to let the market be satisfied by private sector corporations.

Naturally, there have been echoes and minor variations on that line from some of News Corporations branch offices and investments in Australia – particularly the pay-TV sector.

They argued against the ABC offering a children’s channel because Pay offers channels for children. They argued against an ABC news channel because Pay offers news channels.

The argument seems to be because Pay offers specialist content, the ABC should not. The logical conclusion to this would be the ABC’s exclusion from television altogether. Leaving it to the market to provide.

This is a wilful misreading of the ABC’s Charter obligation to take account of what is being offered in the market.

Taking account of the commercial sector does not mean the ABC must avoid any activity a commercial player is providing.

And it never has. The ABC has delivered quality news on television for more than 50 years. Every free-to-air television network has offered news. None of these free-to-air networks suggested that news be limited to commercial providers, that the ABC not deliver nightly news simply because they could deliver it. The consensus was that the best result for the public would, in fact, come from both.

In looking at new services, we need always to consider the distinctiveness of what we provide, how we can meet audience needs, and whether it represents a good investment of taxpayers’ money.

With the possible exception of financial journalism, investment in quality news - international, investigative, detailed analytical reporting - has always been subsidised.

Through classified advertising, or benevolent proprietors, or funding through public broadcasting - valued services the market cannot support directly on its own, have nevertheless been provided.

The cross-subsidy of quality Murdoch publications like The Times of London and The Australian has been well-documented.

In an Australian context, the demise of most of the long-time media barons and family ownership structures around media organisations has inevitably led commercial broadcasters to first reduce the priority given to, and then reduce investment in, serious news and current affairs.

The evidence is strongest in radio and in regional areas, but also in the major television networks.

If the product doesn’t deliver profits, commercial investors must first slash costs, then investment, then simply walk away. They carry no overarching commitment to journalism as a public good, as something inherently necessary in a society with responsible government and accountable public and private institutions. Their brief is to maximise the return to shareholders. That is their responsibility and our systems of corporate governance and accountability would not have it any other way.

But now, after years of commercial market cuts to investment in news and current affairs, we’re in a good position to appreciate the wisdom of a continuing public investment in the ABC’s news service.

Our strategy is built upon a third principle as well which, like the Charter, derives from the ABC Act. And that principle is the Board’s duty to ensure the ABC provides the maximum benefit to the Australian people on the public investment in the ABC. Our new news channel, ABC News 24, will do just that.

The biggest cost in creating a news channel is in the reporting teams on the ground. We have that – nearly 1000 journalists working locally, nationally and internationally.

I suspect we have more people working in our international bureaux than all other Australian media outlets combined.

Teams in 60 local radio stations around the country. A News radio station. Big capital city news rooms. Vast experience.

And, by implementing new technology and work processes, we have made significant savings in our television production model – and are therefore able to redirect this operational money to fund the channel.

So for no additional call on taxpayers, we will deliver this important new service free-of-charge, available to every Australian home.

Those who said it was scandalous that the ABC would create a digital children’s TV channel with additional public funds then said it was scandalous that the ABC would
create a news channel without additional public funds. Critics like these are difficult to please.

But for the Board, the ABC’s News channel is a clear example of how, by leveraging off current spending and expertise built up over decades and through hard work and internal reinvestment, the ABC will deliver maximum benefit to the Australian public.

By adherence to these guiding principles, enshrined in our Charter and our Act, we continue to serve the Australian public well and ensure the ABC remains an important, credible and connected part of the Australian media landscape. These are demanding times. There are countless new pressures on media organisations every day.

Understandably, those in the media who have been long accustomed to the good years of sustained economic and sectoral growth are finding the lean years particularly difficult. Yet, the answers to these challenges will be equally difficult.

James Murdoch’s proposal – that when commercial media are in trouble, public media should be shut out– comes dressed as a solution, an easy answer. Yet it’s an answer that is in the interests only of his shareholders, rather than the interests of our owners, the Australian people. As Adam Smith would say, in this case the private corporation’s shareholder interests are “in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public.”

In looking for answers, it’s important to hold tight to what is working, what has delivered and continues to deliver. To what has been valued in the past and may have an even more important role in the future.

It is why I am happy to debate the role of the ABC. It’s why so many Australians will fight hard to defend it, protect it and secure its future.

 

Peter Pockley - Academy of Science Medal

There are rarely true ‘firsts’. Neil Armstrong was first to set foot on the moon (as far as we can tell!); Mark Oliphant was the first President of our Academy of Science and Suzanne Cory is the first woman to be so elected – even so late as 2010!

Peter Pockley was not exactly the first science broadcaster of any consequence in Australia, but he has been in all likelihood, the greatest pioneer. Crosbie Morrison, the natural historian, presented many programs before and after World War Two for what was then The Australian Broadcasting Commission. Julius Sumner Miller was a famous, finger-wagging, starey-eyed performer of ‘Why Is It So?’ segments on ABC TV in the 60s and 70s, his furious eyebrows being almost as disconcerting as his Yankee accent. But both were unashamedly didactic: teachers on air. Peter did something quite different. He established science journalism, the need to cover all aspects of scientific research, invariably with a proper infusion of showbiz.

Prof Kurt Lambeck, Pres Australian Academy of Sciences,
Governor General Quentin Bryce
and Peter Pockley

I first met him in March 1972. I had been sent over by Humphrey Fisher, who then ran TV Features at the ABC – including some of its science. Peter was in his fourth floor office at the top of William Street in Sydney, within the pink limits of the King’s Cross Red Light District. After hours a flamboyant line of hookers and trannies did business outside the building. There was a car showroom on the ground floor. By contrast Peter Pockley was the embodiment of Oxonian elegance, dark-eyed (as the newspapers duly noted) and wearing kit that nicely registered his history half-way between the quad and the smoother parts of the BBC. He had been trained at the Beeb on his way home from a job teaching chemistry at a posh school in England.

I wrongly inferred a privileged upbringing – Geelong Grammar, Melbourne U. and Balliol. He was a scholarship lad and had earned his every step along the way. Unlike so many of the languid toffs I had known at the BBC this was not a fellow who assumed any divine rights. But Peter did, and always has, made it his business to keep in contact with the higher echelons of the professions and government. Perhaps that is why he is always so immediately suspicious of interlopers and spivs.

The ABC Science Unit I discovered in 1972, which he had established in 1964, was packed with brains. The Executive Producer was John Challis, with his PhD from the Vatican and a charmingly adroit way of cutting through sloppy thinking. Robin Hughes was there (Margaret Throsby’s sister-in-law), the youngest producer ever hired by BBC Third Programme and who would go on to run Film Australia and the Film and Television School. Max Bourke had just left the Unit to join CSIRO, and was soon to become adviser to the first Minister for Science, Bill Morrison – and then CEO of The Australia Council. Michael Daley was there, a New Zealander of robust flair and formidable drinking habits (he’d make Christopher Hitchens look ascetic!) whose journalism set standards internationally.

Peter knew that great radio and TV departments, like leading science outfits, are founded on top minds and creativity. In Bill Gates’s words: you hire the best you can find and let them do what they want. This is always tricky with Head Office. Mutterings about “smartarses” and “who do they think they are?” came from the more sporty or rural traditions of Broadcast House. Peter Pockley was gone soon after I settled in. This was the early 1970s.

He went to The University of NSW, then found a spot at UTS to set up a fore-runner of what is now the resoundingly successful Australian Science Media Centre in Adelaide – run by the very person, Susannah Eliott, he appointed back then to help him – then started to write for what became the Australasian Science Magazine, as well as doing many reports for ABC Radio.

It was during this latter period that Peter gave some of the newer faces on the science scene a hard time, not least those astonishingly well-endowed spruikers at CSIRO whose background in the cigarette industry perplexed many of us. He was utterly unrelenting, and, ultimately, successful in seeing them off.

He has now also built up a formidable archive of recorded biographical interviews with leading researchers for the National Library, providing a record of achievement for all Australians to consult.

On presenting Peter Pockley with the Academy’s medal The Governor General, Quentin Bryce, spoke of his record in setting up a special Science Unit in the ABC and for doing those thrillingly evocative broadcasts in 1969 as Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon.

Why have a specialist unit? Because there are so many topics which elude the mainline news and current affairs programs – there is more to science than dinosaur finds, cancer ‘breakthroughs’ and space disasters. Non specialists also tend to over-emphasise the information fix and ‘debate’ elements. The more you are familiar with scientific ideas the more you know how to dispense with the techno-chat and the false dichotomies. There are few leading scientists who really think HIV isn’t connected to AIDS or who question the main findings on climate change. Science Units are also able to mount intriguing specials on topics you never dreamt might be worth your time: one of the first Peter had me helping to edit was a feature by him recorded in PNG; another was on the biology of coral reefs.

Peter also insisted we go beyond the standard confines of our home highbrow network and even of regular programs. In May 1972 one of my first tasks was to build up research and then help with broadcasts around Apollo 16 (then, later, the last Apollo mission, No. 17, in December) when we went to air at all times of day and night on ABC metro stations breaking into regular shows with live updates, exchanging excited chat with DJs and chat shows as if it were the most natural thing in the world. We even mounted the ABC’s first phone-ins. Peter’s remit: have mike, will travel; in science there are no limits, in radio or TV – or, especially, culturally.

That set of definitions, way back then, have been the basis for ABC Science ever since. This was not a boffiny enclave handing out privileged info de haute en bas. It was a testing ground and melting pot for all manner of enterprising broadcasters from Matt Peacock and Ramona Koval to Richard Aedy and Kirsten Garrett. It enabled hundreds of those outside the ABC to present shows, from the legendary Dr Earle Hackett (who became chairman of the ABC, no less), to Peter Mason, Frank Talbot, Mac Burnet, Gus Nossal, Fiona Stanley and Derek Denton.

It set up links to sister organisations all over the world which we still enjoy today. This is something Peter Pockley pioneered, when it really mattered, nearly fifty years ago.

He may be someone who will never write a single page memo when twenty pages will do; nor take issue with one villain when they may all be vanquished. But his record and commitment to science has been unswerving. Hence, one of the Australian Academy of Science’s highest honours, its medal – is so thoroughly deserved.

 

ABC TV Cancels plans to broadcast documentary on Israeli-Palestinian conflict

The ABC has withdrawn a formal offer it made to Ronin Films to acquire a documentary called HOPE IN A SLINGSHOT, by Australian filmmaker, Inka Stafrace. The offer was accepted by Ronin, but was later cancelled by the ABC on the grounds that the documentary was, in the words of the Head of Television, Kim Dalton, “an opinion program” about a “contentious” subject and that it conflicted with the ABC’s policy of “impartiality”, as required by Clause 6.6.3 of the ABC’s Editorial Policy. Dalton stated that the ABC was unable to find another program that balanced the views expressed in the film.

This cancellation is of concern for several reasons. The film is an exploration of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and makes a pro-peace statement, strongly and refreshingly expressed. It is personally narrated by the filmmaker and she shares her experiences within the conflict zone. The film was independently produced and self-funded, although small amounts of marketing money were donated by both the Jewish and Palestinian communities in Australia.

The film focuses on the details, particularly the human costs, of the occupation of Palestine by Israel. It is not a case against Israel, the Israeli people or the Jewish community. The bulk of the film expresses the thoughts of human rights activists (both Israeli and Palestinian) who live in the region as they discuss the realities of the situation in the West Bank.

The ABC’s policy, as stated by Kim Dalton, suggests that a pro-war film would need to be presented to balance this pro-peace film, but such a policy would logically require a pro-government film to be shown every time any film about revolutionaries is aired. The call for balance defies logic and contradicts the ABC’s own routine programming decisions.

Israeli military objectives routinely dominate our mainstream mass media coverage of the conflict. Yet, in the words of the filmmaker, Inka Stafrace, “If any article or news grab of violence in the region fails to mention the occupation, it is fundamentally un-balanced”. The Palestinians have only limited independent media access to the West, unlike the powerful influence of the Israeli government’s press office. The very showing of HOPE IN A SLINGSHOT would provide an opportunity to contribute to the “balancing” of dominant media reports on the conflict in this country.

The film has received many expressions of support. Dr Jake Lynch, Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney, and a member of the Advisory Board of the Sydney Peace Foundation, makes the following comment: HOPE IN A SLINGSHOT is “extremely impressive. ... A signal contribution to peaceful media representation of this conflict”.

The Australian Teachers of Media (ATOM) have prepared a study guide for HOPE IN A SLINGSHOT, intended for use in secondary schools. This guide provides further opportunity for the issues raised by the film to be discussed and analysed.

Clearly the ABC is afraid of some form of political repercussion if it were to show HOPE IN A SLINGSHOT. The cancellation of the broadcast highlights the need to have a national television network which is truly independent in terms of its editorial content. Whether the ABC’s fear of backlash is a threat coming from government or from the community, our national broadcaster should not be subject to intimidation of this nature.

Senior management should be able to stand by the decisions of qualified and experienced ABC staff who are making informed assessments of programs offered to them. It also seems that it would be good business practice for senior management to honour agreements made by their staff in the course of the professional conduct of their work.

Interestingly, while the free expression of political opinion (such as anti-war arguments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) seem to be inhibited in ABC television, the same constraints do not seem to apply to radio: a pro-peace programme recently aired on ABC’s Radio National.

Finally, it should be noted that “balance” is an inherently problematic concept. “Balance” implies that there are only two sides to any story, yet in the case of the complicated Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there are infinitely more viewpoints than just two.

What we need from our national broadcaster are programs that fearlessly challenge and provoke debate. The ABC’s policy of maintaining “balance” on “contentious” issues runs the risk of halting dialogue and censoring innovative points of view rather than stimulating them, as it so clearly has done with HOPE IN A SLINGSHOT. The Australian public should have access to the film. Our understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict calls for the film to be shown.

Dr Andrew Pike, OAM
Director, Ronin Films

24 May 2010

Note: DVD's of HOPE IN A SLINGSHOT are available from Ronin Films (www.roninfilms.com.au)

 

Never mind ABC TV, put a rocket up ABC Radio

Margaret Simons writes 1July10

Today we have the interesting sight of recent ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen joining in the round of kicking of the national broadcaster for its disappointing performance last Wednesday night when news of the Gillard leadership challenge was breaking.

This is a return to form for Albrechtsen. She was a regular critic of the national broadcaster before joining the board in 2005, as one of the Howard government’s several idiosyncratic appointments. She left the board at the end of her term in February this year and has obviously ended her self-imposed embargo on ABC criticism. Instead, she is today barracking for pay television channel Sky News.

Albrechtsen’s column in The Australian today compares the ABC’s performance unfavourably with Sky, stating that the commercial rival "showed how it should be done" in breaking to live news. "The rawness of it was riveting" she says, of the political pundits examination of entrails on the night -- the comparing of text message from anonymous sources and so on and so forth.

The Australian editorial echoes Albrechtsen (or she echoes it), claiming that the national broadcaster, having broken the news, was then caught napping.

Several things can be said about all this. The ABC’s performance on the night left a lot to be desired. Media Watch did a forensic analysis on Monday night focusing on the worst aspects.

I have been told today that an internal review is under way at the ABC to examine its performance on the night across all platforms. But the particular focus of the review, rightly I think, is not television but radio, where the failure to use the dedicated news channel effectively and the somnambulant performance by some local radio stations across Australia was particularly disappointing.

Yet the focus of The Australian’s criticism is television, and the comparison is made between ABC1 -- a general news channel -- and Sky News, which is a dedicated news service. A moment’s thought should tell us that this is an unfair comparison.

While journos might be frustrated at the failure of ABC1 to switch to entrail reading and text message comparisons (and let’s face it, there was very little real news until late in the evening), the bulk of the audience don’t agree. I am told Sky News attracted an audience of 100,000 that night, whereas the ABC’s line-up of Spicks and Specks, Gruen Transfer and United States of Tara peaked at 1.5 million. Not everyone is a current affairs junky.

So why does The Australian focus on the unfair Sky News/ABC1 television comparison?

What goes undeclared is News Limited’s stake in Sky News through its one-third owner, British Sky Broadcasting, where James Murdoch chairs the board. News also owns 25% of Foxtel. British Sky is an increasingly important part of the empire’s plans, with Murdoch seeking total control. As The Australian’s media commentator Mark Day said recently.

"If I were a betting man, I'd say that some time down the track Murdoch will move to increase his stake in Foxtel. In the meantime, if the BSkyB deal goes through ... expect to see News Limited, Murdoch's Australian arm, move to buy BSkyB's stake in Sky News Australia ... News can see the obvious benefits of putting its journalists into multi platform roles. It has studios in each of its capital city editorial hubs and local ownership of the channel would better enable it to compete with the ABC's new 24-hour news channel."

Exactly.

And so we have today’s Australian editorial, which concludes in self-serving fashion:

"The ABC’s flat-footedness on the biggest news night of the year provides little confidence that it is ready to use its forthcoming 24-hour news channel to break news ... It begs the question why the ABC should be allowed to take on another taxpayer funded channel when the corporation plainly cannot manage the one it already has."

Well, they would say that, wouldn't’t they.

Tensions around when to break into the television schedule of the ABC with breaking news are not new, and the issues involved are not easy. Half a decade ago there were famous fallings over this issue between the then directors of news and the director television, Sandra Levy, who fiercely protected her schedule from the demands of the journos.

There are legitimate criticisms to be made of what the ABC did and failed to do last Wednesday night. There are legitimate issues to do with resourcing the new 24-hour news service, and the news breaking culture of ABC newsrooms.

But let’s be clear that we are also seeing yet another example of what I have previously described as one of the main media battles of this decade -- between public broadcasters and those who want to persuade us to pay for content, with News Limited in the front ranks of the battle.

So how did the ABC perform on television? It broke the news at 7pm, followed up on the 7.30 Report, and tried again on Lateline with Tony Jones’ awkward interview with Peter Garrett, who really wanted to talk about saving the whales and knew nothing about saving Rudd, but was nevertheless the only cabinet minister available.

A decision had been made to cut to news the minute there was any firm announcement. That was done when Rudd fronted the media, but was spoiled in some areas by the failure of the new Media Hub to deliver a glitch-free performance -- something that has also been, I am told, the subject of "intense engagement" internally in the past few days.

If the Media Hub had worked properly, and perhaps if there had been a news kicker on the foot of the screen at times during the evening, I think ABC 1 would have achieved a defensible balance between the various interests and desires of its mass audience.

But radio, surely, should have done better. It is probably unfair to attack Philip Adams, as Media Watch did. While he was broadcasting live, it is also the case that his program is repeated several times through the week and has a big podcast audience. Adams defends himself elsewhere in Crikey today, without mentioning that issue, but it would surely have limited his ability to make 'live' references.

On the other hand, local radio’s performance was patchy, and ABC news radio barely varied its normal unflappable 'cover the field' tone. Someone should have put a rocket up the bum.

And what does it say about the new 24-hour news service? Not much, if anything.

Update from Mark Scott

Mal Hewitt
Friends of the ABC
PO Box 1391
North Sydney NSW 2059

I wanted to update you on our thinking at the ABC following the Government's announcement of increased funding in the budget. As you know, this budget was framed in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. When we started talks in Canberra about our Triennial Funding bid, there was a $20 billion surplus. Last night the Government announced a $58 billion deficit.

In light of this enormous budgetary pressure, it is pleasing we can press ahead with our plans for new services and distinctive content. Our new Children's Channel, ABC3, will be welcomed in the homes of Australian families across the country. We are going to significantly increase the levels of Australian drama on ABC television, working in partnership with the independent production sector. And regional and rural communities will benefit as ABC Local acts as a catalyst and host for the development of rich new broadband material.

This increased funding, the largest increased achieved by the ABC since the establishment of the corporation in 1983, is a robust vote of confidence in the work done by our people.
Our Canberra strategy was based on highlighting the ABC's success as an innovator in new media, as a connector of communities and a provider of distinctive and unique content.
We received strong support for our conviction that, in this dramatically changing media landscape, it was more important than ever that the ABC playa vital role in the lives of Australians everywhere. The increased funding is a vital stepping stone towards establishing the ABC as a great public broadcaster in a digital media era.

In doing this work, we had strong support from industry partners and key community organisations like the Friends of the ABC. Thank you for your support while our funding bid was considered by Government. The outcome does not bring to an end our discussions with Government around funding and strategic priorities and we will continue to engage over the role the ABC plays in Australia's digital future, including the allocation of new digital spectrum. The creation of broadband content to take advantage of the National Broadband Network will be a subject for discussion, as will Australia's international broadcasting opportunities.

At our Leaders' Conference in March this year, I said that, ultimately, the future of the ABC would be determined, not by funding decisions, but by choices we make: the priorities we determine, our ability to deliver on our strategy and the kind of organisation we create. That remains true after the budget. Clearly, in these tough economic times, we have not been funded for everything we wanted. We need to find ways to press on with our moves into digital radio and continuous news. These areas are set to be very important to the future of the public broadcaster. We also need to review our stretched operational budgets to ensure a focus on programming and service delivery.

We have a lot of work to do. We need to continue to deliver for Australians everywhere through broadcast and digital services as well as make the changes necessary to ensure the future of the ABC. In that light, the Board last week made some important decisions: moving ahead quickly on our new Brisbane headquarters and approving funding for the planning work on a new building adjoining our current premises at Southbank to allow all Melbourne activity to be consolidated on one site. The Board also approved a major new investment in a Web Content Management System - a decision that will be welcomed by staff labouring with the antiquated Wallace system as they expand our online services.

The ABC approaches this new era with vigour and excitement. We look closely to working with the Friends of the ABC over the coming years as we pursues our goals of being a new media innovator, a connector of communities and a trusted source of distinctive and unique content.

Mark Scott
Managing Director ABC
13 May 2009

 

ABC in Fiji - Mark Scott

It was a simple phone text message, but the desperation behind it was palpable. “We are trying to listen to you online but are having difficulty. Please keep broadcasting. You are all we have.”

The cry of help, sent to the ABC last week, highlights the anguish within Fiji as the military government extends its grip on power while going to extraordinary lengths to deny its citizens access to information about its activities.

The abrupt switch off of the Radio Australia transmitters in Suva and Nadi by Fijian police came hours after ABC Pacific correspondent Sean Dorney was ordered out of the country. Combined, the two events represent a dark day for journalism and for democracy in the Pacific. They pose challenges for the Australian Government and for the ABC in the complicated new world of international diplomacy.

Dorney has been reporting on the region for over three decades. His authority and knowledge is built around a commitment to tell all sides of a story with a passion and affection for Pacific communities and their cultural richness and abundant potential. Radio Australia has been part of the strong tradition of Fijian independent journalism for seventy years. Seven decades of reporting on the achievements and challenges of the Fijian nation with a commitment to be fair and accurate.

It is too easy to shrug the shoulders and dismiss the pall of repression in Fiji as a sadly, all-too common consequence of Pacific political instability. These developments go to the heart of Australia’s regional interests. Our aspiration is for our neighbours to prosper in societies built on openness, fairness and opportunity for all. When independent scrutiny of government is thrown aside, we all suffer.

In international affairs, where words can be bullets, there is a growing appreciation of the role of “soft diplomacy” – using subtle methods such as the sharing of perspectives to deliver policy objectives. It is not widely known how aggressively other countries, including our partners in the G20, are investing in international broadcasting as a principal tool of soft diplomacy. And how far behind Australia lags in this new race for influence.

The British spend $868 million on international radio and television; the French $618 million; the Germans $532 million; and the Chinese about $380 million. All this is government investment in international broadcasting. In Australia, we currently invest $34 million in Radio Australia and Australia Network television. The ABC has long argued that we extract the maximum possible efficiencies from this outlay, delivering “good bang for our buck”.

Out of this small sum, we broadcast on radio in seven regional languages and reach 44 nations in Asia and the Pacific on Australia Network.

But the ABC – and Australia – risk getting drowned in the growing proliferation of broadcast voices. The Japanese, the Russians and the Germans have recently announced plans for new English television services in Asia and the Pacific.

The easy call, particularly in a tough global economic environment, is to sit back and do nothing.

We do not have that luxury. The ABC’s regional footprint cannot be replicated. This is our neighbourhood. We are not London or Bonn calling.

We have a critical interest in climate change in the Pacific and the strong development of Pacific governments, business and society-all nurtured and nourished by a vibrant independent media. Every day Radio Australia broadcasts for several hours on Pacific affairs (Pacific Beat and In the Loop). Every week Australian Network television airs content that identifies the aspirations and celebrates the achievements of Pacific communities (Pacific Pulse). We are committed to Pacific regional co-operation with ABC International Projects partnering with AusAID and national media to strengthen broadcast capacity in Papua New Guinea, the Solomons and Vanuatu and throughout the Pacific. In order to strengthen our focus we have established in Melbourne the Asia Pacific News Centre with 60 journalists covering the region on international radio, television and online.

In Asia, particularly in the burgeoning new markets of China and India, the ABC is committed to extending its presence. The international service is valued for the quality and accuracy of its news and current affairs reporting. Our audiences tell us that when big news event break in the region, the ABC serves as a trusted primary source of information. But the value is also in the underlying message conveyed by our programming to areas like Fiji where democracy can be a very fragile concept. Here, we have a very robust democratic model, where views and policies are debated and analysed energetically on programs like Q&A, Insiders, Lateline and Jim Middleton’s News Hour.

The federal Government is aware of our views on these issues. The ABC has argued strongly that the solution does not lie in outsourcing our diplomacy to commercial interests, as has been argued by one of our media rivals. We also believe the time is right for a bigger and bolder vision. With the value of old-order global institutions increasingly questioned, new bodies like the G20 have given Australia an opportunity to display leadership on issues ranging from financial regulation to Clean Coal. But we cannot afford to neglect the new tool in the diplomatic kitbag – the power of broadcasting. Just ask the poor text messenger in Fiji.

Mark Scott
ABC Managing Director

A better process, but what about the product?

The new method of making appointments to the ABC board is certainly more open and transparent. However this process, in itself, does not guarantee good decisions.

When he appointed her to the ABC board was the Communications Minister aware of Dr Julianne Schultz’s role in an attempt to tie the ABC into a strategic alliance with Telstra – arguably Australia’s largest, most powerful and most aggressive communications organisation?

Dr Schultz is a distinguished academic and is very highly regarded as the founding editor of the Griffith Review. She is also a former senior executive with the ABC. However in this role her advocacy of the Telstra deal has been criticised by a fellow academic, by unions representing ABC staff and by Friends of the ABC.

As Acting Director of Corporate Relations at the ABC Schultz was a key player in an attempt, lead by then Managing Director Brian Johns, to tie the ABC into a complex and far-reaching commercial deal with Telstra.

Fortunately the proposal was leaked before a contract between Telstra and the ABC could be signed. The Senate established an inquiry at which Schultz, as the main witness for the ABC, pursued the management position forcefully.

In a study of the of evidence presented to the inquiry, published in the academic journal Human Relations, Dr André Spicer argued that the ABC/Telstra deal was an attempt “to shift the broadcaster’s website from being a technology used to achieve public service goals to being a revenue generator.”

A key part of the deal was for the ABC to provide news for display on Telstra’s website, where it would be surrounded with advertising. In return the ABC would receive a substantial fee.

But the deal went well beyond simply supplying a news feed. It also potentially gave Telstra even more influence over the ABC than a commercial advertiser would have over a commercial broadcaster. The proposed agreement allowed Telstra to ‘consult’ with the ABC about future content, co-productions and e-commerce ventures. In effect, Telstra could have input to the ABC editorial process (although the ABC would not have been legally bound to accept Telstra’s suggestions).

The agreement envisaged the ABC promoting Telstra’s Easymail service and that wherever possible the ABC would use Telstra’s broadband service as a back channel. The ABC and Telstra would be obliged to treat each other on a ‘most favoured nation’ basis.

This caused distinguished investigative journalist and former ABC board member Quentin Dempster to describe the ABC/Telstra relationship as a ‘strategic alliance’. He told the inquiry that this alliance involved the ABC “in a fully commercial business plan with another operator and a delivery system. This arrangement will cause us all sorts of trouble with Optus, with any other player. I am basing this on my bitter experience being on the board of the ABC as we did a deal with Fairfax and Cox Communications for pay TV.”

In evidence before the inquiry Schultz was unapologetic about the commercial thrust of the Telstra deal. She told the hearing that it might be necessary to pursue an increasingly commercial approach that “would involve a fundamental change in direction to move into a very commercial space where very large amounts of money are being spent at this stage for very little return but for great speculative gain.”

Fortunately the deal was never signed. The new ABC Managing Director Jonathan Shier killed it, not because it was too commercial, but because he thought the ABC was selling its content too cheaply.

Julianne Schultz is a very intelligent person. As she joins the ABC board we must hope that she has learned from her earlier experience of the ABC.

Darce Cassidy April 2009