ABC loses hope
Ronin Films director Andrew Pike says the ABC changed its mind about a doco on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Why, he wonders?
The ABC has withdrawn a formal offer it made to Ronin Films to acquire a documentary called Hope in a Slingshot, by Australian filmmaker, Inka Stafrace.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 propeace 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 prowar 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, here 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
Hope in a Slingshot is available from Ronin Films.
Read Kim Dalton’s response to Andrew Pike on February 16, 2010.
Read a transcript of Senator Ludlam questioniong ABC MD Mark Scott about this documentary, on May 25, 2010.
Note from the editor: Encore contacted the ABC for comment, but the broadcaster refused to respond and referred us to their statement to Crikey as the only one the ABC will make at the moment.
“ABC Television will “consider” broadcasting a Middle East pro-peace documentary it had previously refused to show after pressure from the film’s distribution company.”
The rest of the article is in Crikey’s subscription area.
Pike provided further comment here.
I would rather watch something thought-provoking than something asinine and mind-numbingly prescriptive. It’s so disappointing to read the ABC is being so careful and fearful of a backlash. I find it so strange that in a supposed democracy we have a public broadcaster being so political. There are two sides in this conflict and it would be really interesting to have current perceptions rather than having the past regurgitated constantly as a static testament of the conflict. The ABC, by NOT showing the documentary IS saying more about it’s own bias.
User ID not verified.
correction – *it’s should be its – I was so angered by this article I forgot to proofread.
User ID not verified.
We should be concerned also about the documentaries that will not be developed as a result of the national broadcasters narrow definition of ‘balance’. For example:
I have for the past 15 years been documenting the life of a Cambodian street kid – from a 7 year old beggar to 22 year old mother of four. The latest chapter in her life involves having her two eldest daughters ‘stolen’ (in the ‘stolen generation’ sense) by an Australian based Christian Non Government Organization. Despite the overwhelming evidence that this young woman’s children have been removed from her care illegally (under Cambodian, Australian and International law) one of the reasons ABC Documentaries has given me for not becoming involved is that I am not in a position to present the viewpoint of the Christian church! And why can’t I present it? Because the Church refuses to answer any questions; refuses to allow a representative to speak on behalf of the Church; has threatened to sue me if I so much as mention the name of the Church.
I asked ABC Documentaries what its response would have been if the ‘orphans’ illegally removed from Haiti recently had been ‘stolen’ by Australian Christians? If I wished to document this story, would the ABC refuse to participate in it (either in terms of a pre-sale or buying the finished documentary) on the grounds that those who had allegedly ‘stolen’ the children refused to answer questions or make themselves available to be interviewed? The ABC would not answer this question.
The ABC’s narrow definition of ‘balance’ thus acts as a disincentive for filmmakers to do investigative work on contentious subjects. Any filmmaker wishing to produce a documentary with an investigative component in it would be wise to think twice about embarking on such a project with the ABC in mind unless the person or institution being investigated agrees to present their point of view!
User ID not verified.
Whatever legalistic burocratism has seized ABC? Yes, the broadcaster should over time and over its programs give a wide range of views. This notion of “balance” should apply to the stance of the programmers i.e. they remain neutral about the content of programs. Their job should be to recognise good quality productions which have stories and outlooks that will interest and challenge members of what already is a wide spectrum of elements in the community. It is not in the least necessary that a given program item should somehow incorporate “balance”. Get rid of these queasy managers!
User ID not verified.
Agree with everyone here, the ABC is clearly scared of any criticism that may paint it as a politically-influenced body with an agenda. It thus is failing to support and broadcast important stories that provoke debate and indeed, stimulate an alternate point of view or further research. This over-focus on balance on a case by case basis is not in the public interest, and will only cause the ABC to lose viewers over time, purely for its own self-interest. The ABC itself could instead be proactive and seek to commission work that provides a range of perspectives on key issues.
User ID not verified.
Of course the ABC wouldn’t show it because it is interesting and provocative. They aren’t into showing those sorts of documentaries which is lamentable in the extreme because Australians are missing out. The ABC is a borefest and as for Dalton he couldn’t run the then AFC properly and helped fund god knows how many terrible films and now he runs the ABC. It’s almost like the mismanagement of the pediphilia problem in the Catholic church in this country’s film industry. Just keep moving the poorly performing creeps on to somewhere where else where they can wreak more damage.
User ID not verified.