Opinion

Impartiality gone mad

Filmmaker James Ricketson shares his experience with the ABC’s policy of impartiality, following Andrew Pike’s case last week.

In the interests of debate about the ABC’s commitment to ‘balance’, in its programming, this is a record of my experience with one project presented to the ABC.

My documentary Sleeping with Cambodia was broadcast on the ABC in 1996. The film rated very well. Sleeping with Cambodia was implicitly critical of money-wasting NGOs in Cambodia – one of them the high profile Christian NGO World Vision. After Sleeping with Cambodia’s screening the ABC was deluged with correspondence from World Vision and other NGOs accusing the documentary of bias.

A long battle of words ensued. I was asked again by the ABC to verify the factual basis of the statements I had made in the film relating to how much it cost World Vision to support one child in a street kids’ centre – 10 times per annum what it would have cost to support an entire Cambodian family. I did so to the ABC’s satisfaction – as I had already prior to the screening. World Vision did not give up, however. The deluge of criticism of the film continued. The ABC was in a double bind. It supported Sleeping with Cambodia as being factually correct and yet wanted to get the NGOs off its back. The solution? Broadcast, late at night when virtually no-one would see it, a statement to the effect that the ABC acknowledged that this powerful lobby group did not believe the film to be factually correct. I was informed of the ABC’s decision only hours before the statement was broadcast. This statement did not accuse me of lying, but nor could it have been construed as support for my integrity as a filmmaker. Very few people would have seen it at 10.30 but it had the effect that the ABC desired. The deluge of correspondence from World Vision stopped.

Fast forward 10 years. I have continued to film in Cambodia – the focus of my attention being Chanti – one of the ‘stars’ of Sleeping with Cambodia. Chanti is in her mid-teens now. I want to make a follow-up documentary about what has and hasn’t changed in Cambodia in the past decade. One thing that hasn’t changed is the sheer numbers of NGOs working in the country – a very high proportion of them funded by Christian churches from around the world. Many of these Christian NGOs are evangelical and, despite Cambodian laws forbidding proselytizing, are involved in winning souls for Christ, in the conversion of impoverished (and sometimes orphaned) Buddhist children into Christians. Many other Christian NGOs are not evangelical and have no desire to convert the young charges in their care.

When I approached Stuart Menzies, Head of ABC Documentaries, with my plan for a follow up film (entitled Chanti’s World) he told me that he would never put to air (and hence could not commission) a documentary that discouraged viewers from donating to charities. This amounts to censorship of any documentary that looks at ineffective, inefficient or money wasting charities that may be breaching Australian law and the laws of the counties in which they are operating. The desire on the ABC’s part not to discourage public support for ‘good’ charities leaves the ‘bad’ charities free to do what they like with no fear of public exposure – at least not on the ABC. Stuart Menzies will not deny that this conversation took place. He has subsequently admitted to it in writing to me.

Fast forward another five years. My now 15 year record of Chanti growing up on the streets of Phnom Penh includes two of her children (Rasa and Chita) having been essentially abducted by an Australian based Christian NGO run by a Brisbane based church – Citipointe. This was achieved by getting Chanti to place her thumb print on a document that the Church told her was merely giving the Church permission to take care of her children on a temporary basis whilst she was in dire financial straits.

I was in Phnom Penh at the time and encouraged Chanti to accept the Church’s offer. Her two older daughters would have a roof over their heads (as Chanti had not), would get three meals a day (which Chanti struggled to provide) and be given access to education and medical care that were beyond Chanti’s meagre income  – derived from selling cigarettes, drinks and snacks to tourists down by the river. The children would be just a few streets away and Chanti would have regular access to them and they would be able, on the weekends, to visit her down by the river where she lived. It was, it seemed, a win-win scenario for Chanti and for the children.

No sooner had I left Phnom Penh than the Church informed Chanti that she would only be allowed to see her children for 2 hours each month (a total of 24 hours a year) and that these visits would be monitored by Church staff. The children would remain with the Church until they were 18. Chanti turned to me for help. Understandable not only because of my long association with her but because I had recommended to her that she accept the offer of Citipointe church to help her.

It turned out that the ‘contract’ Chanti had applied her thumb print to (Chanti can neither read nor write) made no mention of Chanti’s visiting rights or of how long Citipoine church would take care of her daughters.  Indeed, the contract contained no conditions at all, was not counter-signed by anyone representing Citipointe church and was illegal even by the shoddy standards of Cambodia. Two years later the Church still has Chanti’s children. They are being brought up as Christians and have very limited access to their mother. Whilst they live, in Cambodian terms, in the lap of luxury, Rosa and Srey Mal’s mother and her two remaining children live on the street still. Citipointe church has not only stolen Chanti’s children but has reneged on its promise to provide her with assistance.

All of this is very well documented but despite the overwhelming evidence that Chanti’s children have been removed from her care illegally (under Cambodian, Australian and international law) Stuart Menzies tells me that it cannot be involved in the production of my documentary because I am not in a position to present the viewpoint of the Christian church! “Your lack of access to the relevant organizations hamstrings your journalistic endeavours to tell a balanced story,” writes Stuart. “This is obviously crucial for any investigative film on the ABC.”

And why can’t I present a ‘balanced story’? Because Citopointe Church refuses to answer any questions; refuses to allow a representative to speak on behalf of the Church.

I have been trying for close on two years to get Citipointe Church to answer questions, to justify its actions in terms of Cambodian and Australian law and it terms of its Christian principles. Other than sending a threatening letter to me by the church’s lawyer, Citipointe has remained silent. I have copied Stuart Menzies on all the emails I have sent to Citiponte Church this past 18 months but his position remains unchanged: without the cooperation of the Church that has essentially kidnapped Chanti’s children the ABC cannot be involved in the production of Chanti’s World. Stuart insists that his statement of five years ago, to the effect that he would never put to air a documentary that discourages ABC viewers from giving to charity, has no bearing on the ABC’s decision not to back Chanti’s World without the cooperation of Citipointe church.

I believe that my 15 year record of what has happened to the ‘star’ of Sleeping with Cambodia would be of interest to ABC viewers and can only conjecture as to why Stuart Menzies insists on the willing participation in Chanti’s World by a church that I allege has illegally removed Chanti’s children from her care. I will posit two possibilities and hope, in this forum, that the ABC may respond:

  1. The ABC does not wish, again, to be deluged with emails etc. from Citipointe Church and other evangelical Christians who believe that they have been called upon by God to save the souls of poor kids in third world countries.
  2. That the religious beliefs of certain members of senior management at the ABC influence the national broadcaster’s decisions vis a vis broadcasting documentaries that are implicitly critical of the way in which certain members of their shared faith behave in third world countries.

In the case of Chanti’s World I would be quite happy to include in the documentary whatever audio-visual contribution it may wish to make to it. I would include it edited in the way in which Citipointe church has edited it so that the audience can make up its own mind regarding the legality or otherwise of Citipoint church’s actions.

Note from the editor: the ABC has been contacted for comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Get the latest media and marketing industry news (and views) direct to your inbox.

Sign up to the free Mumbrella newsletter now.

 

SUBSCRIBE

Sign up to our free daily update to get the latest in media and marketing.