ABC managing director Mark Scott: we’re a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster
ABC managing director Mark Scott has issued a passionate defence of the embattled broadcaster as he confronted Tony Abbott’s question of “whose side” the ABC is on and accused News Corp of failing to engage in a “rational discourse” over the appearance of Zaky Mallah on its Q&A program.
In what has been a torrid week for the ABC following Mallah’s participation in the show, Scott again conceded it made the “wrong call” in allowing the former terrorism suspect to take part.
But in a speech to corporate affairs professionals in Melbourne, Scott hit back at critics and stressed the ABCs role and position in Australian society was as a “public broadcaster”, not a government-controlled “state broadcaster”.
Turning pointedly to the question posed by the Prime Minister, who asked the ABC “whose side are you on?”, Scott said the broadcaster is “on the side of Australia”.
“It’s not the first time it’s been asked,” he said. “Menzies, Hawke, Neville Wran – they all asked it in their own inimitable ways.
“It’s a good question. And while it’s often asked with a rhetorical flourish, a question about the role and nature of the public broadcaster in these highly polarised and partisan times, it’s a fair one.
“Well, in any team, you can be playing on the same side, but often you will be playing in a different position, with a different role and responsibility. You’re on the same side, but with a different job to do. You do your bit and you work together to make the team successful.
“The ABC is clearly Australian, it’s on the side of Australia. The A in ABC is for Australian. And the part we play, what we do for the side, is a vital one, central to our culture and our democracy – that of being an independent public broadcaster.”
He said the ABC’s Charter includes a “responsibility” to Australians at home and abroad as he stressed a desire within the organisation “to be the independent home of Australian conversations, culture and stories”.
Describing the Government’s order for an investigation into Mallah’s appearance as a “snap enquiry”, Scott said it is the independence of the ABC that “shapes the ABC as public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster”.
“A state broadcaster is the communications arm of the Government. Its role is to communicate the messages of the Government, and certainly not to do anything that undermines the Government.” he said.
“I hope no one seriously wants the ABC to be a state broadcaster. We know the exmaples. North Korea and Russia. China and Vietnam. There are many others.
“The ABC Act does not envisage the ABC as another brand of Government public relations. Instead, it asks the ABC to provide an independent national broadcasting service. And the board is asked to maintain that independence.”
He said Australians “cherish freedom of expressions and cherish debate”.
“They cherish the role of the ABC in facilitating both,” Scott said.
He branded the “media firestorm” surrounding Zaky Mallah as “ferocious” as he took aim at some of the coverage given to the story by News Corp titles.
“On Wednesday we scored four covers on one day in the News Limited tabloids, complete with photoshopped ABC flags being waved by jihadi protestors,” he said. “Not all parties to the conversation have seemed vested in pursuing a rational discourse.”
But Scott admitted the ABC is “not perfect” and reiterated the need to review editorial decision-making.
“The ABC is not perfect and while it sets high standards, it won’t always meet them,” he said. “There will be poor journalistic practices or poor editorial judgment shown occasionally, and criticism of the ABC will be well founded.”
Scott added that trust in the ABC remained “streets ahead” of its commercial competitors, arguing that it was “independent from pressure by advertisers or proprietors, independent from the need to maximise sales or advertising, independent from a Government dictating the coverage it wants or needs”.
Mark Scott’s speech to the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs in full:
From time to time, I’m asked to speak to journalism students about what it’s like working in a news room.
I often reflect that for all the planning you can do around big news events—an election, a budget, The Olympics—almost by definition, the biggest stories are those you can’t predict, you didn’t know were about to erupt.
These kinds of stories are sometimes fascinating, sometimes appalling. But they get the adrenaline running in the newsroom.
Thinking about it now, I suspect that those of us running corporate affairs, as you do—or running a corporation as I do—don’t hanker for the adrenaline rushes quite so much!
But things happen. As Harold McMillan said when asked what were the greatest challenges a leader faces in public life, “Events, my dear boy, events.”
So, given the events of the week including the government’s announcement of an inquiry into the events surrounding Monday’s Q&A plus the commentary and questions that have erupted about the role of the ABC, I thought it would be appropriate to address some of these issues with you tonight.
As you know, Monday night’s Q&A triggered very significant debate and controversy. A man who had been tried and acquitted of planning a terrorist attack, who pleaded guilty to threatening to kill ASIO officials, applied to be in the studio audience and to ask a question.
It is not as though this man was unknown to the media. He’d appeared on numerous occasions previously across a number of networks. He’d been in the Q&A audience before.
As someone said to me this week, free speech arguments would be easier if you were always defending Martin Luther King. At times, free speech principles mean giving platforms to those with whom we fundamentally disagree.
It was the crux of the Charlie Hebdo argument last year and of course, the source of the maxim that was used to describe Voltaire’s beliefs—“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Media organisations often give airtime to the criminal and the corrupt. To those who express views that run contrary to accepted public values. You have to set the bar very high before you begin to exclude certain views or perspectives.
We still need to hear in order to gain insight into thinking, into motivation. To understand the root cause of behaviours and actions that we might find confronting and alarming, or worse.
The man who appeared on Q&A had been given considerable space by numerous media outlets in recent years. If giving him space or time to express his views is an act of sedition, then the round up of the seditious will take some time and include, I should add, The Australian newspaper which ran an extensive article on him in 2012, charting his journey from when terrorism charges were first laid against him. He also graced the pages of The Courier-Mail.
However, as we said at the ABC on Tuesday morning, other issues were triggered by giving this man a forum on live television through Q&A that are not free speech issues. I can see circumstances where a question asked by this man could have been broadcast, just as other controversial figures have asked questions on Q&A before, like Julian Assange.
The risks and uncertainities of having him in a live programming environment weren’t adequately considered before the decision was made to accept his application to be in the studio audience.
It’s one thing to pre-record an interview and exercise editorial judgment on the content before you put it to air. But live television doesn’t give you that option. And in Q&A’s case, it took place with a large studio audience present. The ABC’s immediate statement, on Tuesday morning, made this clear.
These things needed to have been thought through carefully and referred up internally. We have detailed upward referral on editorial judgment at the ABC to help guide thinking in complex or contentious matters.
We’re also aware of potential security issues and are, in fact, talking to the AFP to ensure they are completely appropriate for the program.
Now there are some ABC staff, present and past, who argue that to make any concession in the face of criticism is to buckle. Who say it’s a sign of weakness. Respectfully I disagree.
It’s not weakness to say you made the wrong call. We have no problem with that. People who are equally well-meaning will often make different judgments. The judgments that count in this matter are the ones made by those paid to make them. Those at the program, and those in the editorial chain-of-command above them that leads to me, reporting to the Board.
The ABC is reviewing the decision-making processes around Q&A in light of this experience. This is happening internally, now. And the Board had previously determined that Q&A would form part of this year’s series of independent editorial reviews it commissions.
It will be undertaken by someone external to the ABC and will look across all aspects of the program across a range of episodes. Its considered findings will be released later in the year.
The ABC will co-operate with the Government’s snap inquiry, which is to report back next Tuesday.
We know that live television is dangerous. That it can be unpredictable and compelling. Part of the success of Q&A is that the audience knows it’s live. It’s event programming. And viewing numbers increased significantly when the show commenced broadcasting live tweets on the screen. Many in the audience leaned in, got even more involved.
Q&A has a lot of moving parts—pulling together the panel, bussing people in from all over the place, getting a balanced studio audience, selecting the questions and tweets. It’s hardly a straight-forward proposition, and that’s further fueled by the electricity of the live production.
I admire those who accept what can be the ultimate challenge of being on the panel, to test their arguments and their wit, live in front of a million people. The studio crowd can be rowdy, vocal, unforgiving. It is easy to find excuses not to come on the panel, but to say yes, to turn up—you need ticker. It’s a Todd Sampsonesque piece of heroics. You’re on the high wire without a net. And that’s not just the panel—it’s the same every week for the host and the senior producers.
As we know, Q&A engages audiences and it triggers a response from them too. People will not be happy with every panel or questioner or tweet. Not every editorial judgment made will be right. The show generates passion like few others. No program is more heavily scrutinised by audiences and critics.
I feel that Q&A has all the potential of being a 20+ year franchise for the ABC, so we need to treat it with care. Like Four Corners, it’s a show that should endure when all current management and production teams are long gone, an enduring part of Australian public life. Those of us who have responsibility for it now are trustees for its future.
Amidst this week’s controversy, I don’t want to lose sight of the terrific achievements of Q&A. Extraordinary programs on mental health and AIDS. The remarkable program from the Garma forum. Shanghai. Delhi. Those times we felt we were having a really intelligent, engaging national conversation around the things that matter most.
And while we remember these special episodes, it is also worth remembering that our highest rating Q&A episodes are often the regular ones where politicians and community leaders thrash out the issues of the week. It has become a staple in the lives of many Australians, every Monday night.
We will reflect on the events of this week, have the program independently reviewed and look to ensure that it pursues and delivers its potential to be public broadcasting at its best – to inform, to educate and to entertain.
The media firestorm that has erupted around Monday’s Q&A was ferocious, but as a public broadcaster, the ABC goes through these from time to time. At times I have felt that, compared to our Commonwealth public broadcasting cousins in the UK and Canada, we go through relatively few.
But even for the ABC, things seemed to have been taken to a new level when on Wednesday we scored four covers on one day in the News Limited tabloids, complete with photoshopped ABC flags being waved by jihadi protestors. Not all parties to the conversation have seemed vested in pursing a rational discourse.
A question was posed this week. Whose side is the ABC on? It’s not the first time it’s been asked. Menzies, Hawke, Neville Wran—they all asked it in their own inimitable ways.
It’s a good question. And while it’s often asked with a rhetorical flourish, a question about the role and nature of the public broadcaster in these highly polarized and partisan times, it’s a fair one.
Sometimes it seems questions like this are framed to cause doubt. To challenge what we have always felt. And while rhetorical questions are designed to be posed and not answered, I want to answer this one.
It’s important.
Whose side is the ABC on?
Well in any team, you can be playing on the same side, but often you will be playing in a different position, with a different role and responsibility. You’re on the same side, but with a different job to do. You do your bit and you work together to make the team successful.
The ABC is clearly Australian, it’s on the side of Australia. The A in ABC is for Australian. And the part we play, what we do for the side, is a vital one, central to our culture and our democracy – that of being an independent public broadcaster.
The ABC’s Charter covers our responsibility to Australians who live in this country and also Australians living overseas. Our wide, diverse programming reaches Australians everywhere across the land.
Inside the ABC, we talk about wanting to be the independent home of Australian conversations, culture and stories.
Central to the legislation establishing the Corporation is the independence of the public broadcaster. Funded by Government, accountable to the public for its performance, governed by a Board of eminent, independent Australians.
And of course, it’s precisely this independence that shapes the ABC as a public broadcaster, not a state broadcaster.
A state broadcaster is the communications arm of the Government. Its role is to communicate the messages of the Government—and certainly not to do anything that undermines the Government.
I hope no-one seriously wants the ABC to be a state broadcaster.
We know the examples. North Korea and Russia. China and Vietnam. There are many others.
But that has never been the role of a public broadcaster here, a public broadcaster formed in the tradition set out by Lord Reith the first head of the BBC, who spoke of a duty to inform, educate and entertain.
The Reithian tradition shapes the history of the ABC. Its independence enshrined in legislation and entrusted to the Board.
The ABC Act does not envisage the ABC as another branch of Government public relations. Instead, it asks the ABC to provide an independent national broadcasting service. And the Board is asked to maintain that independence.
The ABC’s Editorial Policies state that “the trust and respect of the community depend on the ABC’s editorial independence and integrity. Independence and responsibility are inseparable.”
The first editorial policy says to maintain the independence and integrity of the ABC.
There are good reasons for independence from Government, just as there are good reasons for an independent judiciary.
Australians cherish freedom of expression, and they cherish debate. They cherish the role of the ABC in facilitating both.
When we were planning television in Australia sixty years ago, we came up with our own model, an Australian model that offered us the best of both worlds.
When it came to the public broadcasting side of it, we didn’t do what the British had done when they made the BBC a monopoly.
We didn’t what the Americans had done, creating public television only later on, almost an afterthought of the Johnson presidency.
We didn’t do what Italy had done, with three national channels allocated to three leading political parties. Nor did we follow the French example, where the top jobs at the public broadcaster would change when the party in Government changed.
In Australia, when Governments change, we could change the public broadcasters with them, align them to more positively reflect the Government’s agenda, to do the Government’s bidding.
But you would have to change the ABC Act.
And you would have to destroy the ABC as we have known it for eight decades.
Instead, Australia has an independent ABC and that independence is key to its credibility. It’s why trust in the ABC is streets ahead of commercial media. The Essential Poll conducted earlier this week demonstrates that far more Australians put their trust in ABC TV news and current affairs, than other media outlets.
It’s why the ABC is one of the most trusted institutions in the country, along with the High Court and the Reserve Bank.
I think you’ll find that in Australia, as in every country where public broadcasting exists, “The most trusted public broadcasters are those that are perceived as closest to the public, and most distant from the government”, as the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard noted in its review of NYU’s research paper Public Media and Political Independence.
The history of the ABC is a history that shows the anger and frustration of Government at ABC broadcasts from time to time. Ken Inglis’ two histories of the ABC document these stoushes at length.
Those of you with longer memories will recall the harsh criticism dished out by the Hawke Government over the ABC’s coverage of the first Gulf War.
In my nearly nine years at the ABC, when we’ve had Governments both Labor and Liberal, there have been ABC stories that generated the wrath of the Government of the day. Monday’s Q&A is but the most recent example.
Of course there will be stories that frustrate politicians. Of course there will be coverage that’s not of their choosing. But my experience has been that most politicians have understood the importance of the independence of the public broadcaster from political pressure and interference. It’s a mark of the maturity of our democracy.
Most—though some, aren’t reluctant to turn up the heat now and again to see what happens.
Long may that independence continue.
And as it does, it is vital the ABC appreciates that independence and responsibility are inseparable.
The ABC is not perfect, and while it sets high standards, it won’t always meet them. There will be poor journalistic practice or poor editorial judgment shown occasionally, and criticism of the ABC will be well founded.
Good journalism is strengthened by setting the record straight. That’s a responsibility as well. The finest media outlets are those who, in taking accuracy and the truth seriously, willingly concede error. And then put things right.
Of course, there are times when someone thinks a story is inaccurate when it’s simply speaking an inconvenient truth. Other times stories will cause frustration and embarrassment—to Government, to business, to unions, to leading social institutions. That’s what public accountability is all about.
Stories that people would rather not have been told. Stories that are immediately attacked, but over time are revealed to be right and of overwhelming public importance.
Witness the Royal Commission into the institutional response to child sexual assault. The ABC was at the forefront of uncovering the stories that led the establishment of the landmark review. Look Four Corners and Lateline’s coverage of endemic poverty and appalling living standards in Indigenous communities.
Journalism served the public interest in bringing the corruption in Queensland under Premier Bjelke-Peterson to light. In revealing the appalling treatment of customers by financial planners at the Commonwealth Bank, cruelty in the greyhound industry, the callous behaviour of James Hardie, the deception of cash for comment in commercial radio.
The ABC serves the public interest in this way through hundreds of stories a week, from the biggest cities to small country towns.
These are the contributions made by an independent public broadcaster. Independent from pressure by advertisers or proprietors. Independent from the need to maxmise sales or advertising. Independent from a Government dictating the coverage it wants or needs.
Independent from these pressures but responsible under the ABC Act to deliver journalism that is accurate and impartial to the recognised standards of objective journalism.
It’s journalism that means speaking truth to power. Pushing for disclosure and transparency. Seeking to verify that which we are asked to take on trust. Asking difficult questions. And bringing to light views that are very different to ours, being challenged and confronted—to increase our understanding and insight, if not our acceptance.
The stakes don’t get any higher than when reporting on national security. Not just in keeping citizens safe, but keeping our nation sound as well as safe—our privacy protected, our democracy robust, ensuring the integrity of our institutions, the honesty of our politicians and that our rights as citizens are being respected.
In doing this important work in our journalism, the ABC is also held to account for our decisions and our performance.
The ABC’s accountability mechanisms are more robust than those of any other media organisation in the country.
The Annual Report details the operations of the independent complaints division run by the ABC that looks into every material complaint submitted by audiences. The A.C.M.A. can review decisions made by that complaints division.
At least three times a year there are public Senate hearings where, along with other ABC Executives, I answer a vast range of questions for hours —and hundreds of others are put on notice.
Detailed reporting on the ABC’s expenditure goes to the Department of Finance in Canberra.
Even our own program, Media Watch, casts a critical eye as intently over the ABC as it does other media outlets.
The ABC Board is now commissioning its own independent reviews of editorial content to go alongside the extensive financial auditing process. These reviews are just part of the Board’s response to its editorial responsibilities under the Act.
It is unparalleled compared to any other media organisation in the country, and rightly so. We are spending taxpayers dollars and with the right to practice our craft, comes responsibility and accountability for performance.
Much of what I have discussed tonight goes to our journalism – a vital part of what we do. But it is only part. Only part of the role we play.
I have sometimes had to say to politicians that they do seem to get obsessed about 2% of the ABC’s content—usually the part that’s about them or the issues their polling currently says is important.
But the ABC is for all Australians and it’s much bigger and broader and richer than that.
Political content certainly gets the attention of our audiences. They engage with Q&A, Insiders, 7.30, AM and PM.
But if you look at the numbers, this is but a small fraction of the audience’s ABC experience across radio and television, online and mobile. From Play School to Charlie Pickering, from Matt and Alex to Mad as Hell, to our famous medicos, Dr Norman Swan and Dr Lucien Blake—they represent the ABC for millions of Australians for hours every week.
We celebrate Australia at the ABC. We celebrate important national events and the lives of Australians. The great, the unknown.
Witness our coverage on Anzac Day. Dawn Services around the country, marches in capital cities, commemorations from Anzac Cove and Lone Pine.
And on Australia Day, bringing the stories of the Australians of the Year and the National Flag Raising and Citizenship Ceremony.
Having national conversations on absolutely crucial matters like mental health during our Mental As week.
Bringing Australians together to raise $5m in just a few days for relief efforts in Nepal.
We have been doing this kind of work for years and years.
In November we commemorate 70 years of The Country Hour. Next year marks 20 years of Australian Story. Since 1932 on radio we have had local voices, telling local stories to local communities.
As The Sydney Morning Herald noted when the ABC turned 75—you would still have an Australia without the ABC, but it wouldn’t be this Australia.
This Australia owes much to the ABC. Because the ABC is an indispensible part of Australian life and part of the lives of millions of Australians each day.
That’s why well over 80% of Australians believe the ABC provides a valuable service.
It’s valuable when it discovers brilliant new Australian musical talent that will conquer the world through triple j unearthed.
Valuable when we listen to the beautiful work of ABC composers recorded by the ABC Classics label.
Valuable when we hear Jim Maxwell, in the dead of night, calling the Ashes from England.
Valuable when we’re listening to the birdsong on Macca on a Sunday morning.
When we’re absorbed by the best television drama of the year—The Secret River. And the most compelling docudrama for a decade, The Killing Season, which led to the cry during Question Time last week, “Thank you to the ABC”.
The work of the ABC, what it adds to our lives, reminds me of the words of the US physicist Robert Wilson. Wilson had been called to testify at a congressional hearing in the late 1960s. He was being challenged by Senator John Pastore about the rationale for the government spending $250m on a new scientific investment. Pastore asked whether Wilson’s work had anything to do with promoting “the security of the country”.
Wilson said it didn’t—none at all. But he then pointed out this kind of work “only has to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture. . . . It has to do with whether we are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate in our country and are patriotic about. . . . It has nothing to do directly with defending our country—except to make it worth defending.”
And that is the key answer to the question about the role ABC plays in Australia, the part we play on the team.
For we are the independent home of Australian conversations and culture and stories.
Reaching Australians everywhere on radio and television, online and mobile.
Celebrating achievement. Sharing discoveries. Uncovering truths.
Talking about the things that matter. A place where Australians can come to talk and listen, to watch, to share.
Helping us understand each other and this country better.
To help make Australia, Australia.
And that’s how we fulfill our part on the team.
Steve Jones
This article doesn’t provide instructions on how best to high-five Mark Scott. Please amend.
yes, the ABC is asked to provide an independent national broadcasting service
but the vast majority of news and current affairs content, commentary and commentators are left leaning.
Honestly, what a question to ask of a public broadcaster ‘Whose side are you on?’. It could have come from an ignorant 3rd year high school student but no such luck, it’s our PM. And then to echo ISIS itself, threatening ‘heads should roll’…with no sense of irony at all. And no sense of the independence that should bear between ABC and government.
And no attack at all on News Corp, despite their extensive links to Mallah dating back to early 2000s, as detailed in Justice Woods judgement of the time. They gave him interviews, publicity and quite probably money as well (see today’s Crikey). So News Corps current hysterical attacks on ABC are the purest of hypocrisy.
The ABC is our most trusted media source by a country mile (no need to detail least trusted), broadcasting our most trusted news service. The ABC regularly fights it out with the High Court and the Reserve Bank as our most trusted institution. And there’s good reason for this. How’s our PM’s popularity going?
Great speech by Mark Scott – A solid rebuttal to team Rupert/Tony attacks.
@Joseph, you are saying that ABC is less politically bias than fairfax, news corp, or any other PRIVATE media organisation.
But that’s correct. Every one of them has their own bias/agenda, the issue is not that news corp has paid these terror suspect to be on their show. It is the fact ABC paid the same person with no privately owned ad dollars, it was paid for with public tax payer money. ABC does not make any money, their income is laughable. And the private institutions pay more to the Australian people back through their tax than ABC ever will.
ABC should be scrapped entirely, and in it’s place the leftist socialists can create any private outlet they can think up to rival Murdoch. Let’s call it SBC, Socialist Broadcasting Corporation.
Cheers,
The ABC used to, and should stand for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but now unfortunately means A Biased Commentary. Even the regional ABC radio stations no longer announce an unbiased viewpoint in their morning local segments, but now spew forth one sided commentaries, only to be continued when hooked up to the city networks.
Now my comments are to be censored.
Just more ammunition for why the taxpayer shouldn’t be funding this. We have a diverse wealth of media options across print, radio and especially online, and all these options are far more accessible, to a far greater proportion of the population, than ever before. There is no actual need for a publicly-funded news outlet any more.
What an unmitigated, delusional disgrace.
This cabal of inner city Leftists have convinced themselves that they are unaccountable. Even though Australian taxpayers fund them to comply with the ABC Charter, they fail to comply. Mark Scott is paid over $800,000 a year by struggling taxpayers to do a job and comply with the rules. He does neither.
Having for base political reasons, promoted and lionised a man convicted of planning to murder public servants, a man who also advocated the gang rape or two female journalists – Mark Scott is now clearly detached from reality. He must be dismissed immediately, irrespective of whatever statutory processes are required.
Time to hit the ‘restart’ button on the ABC, in the public interest.
The Abbott government must dispense justice now, and ensure all those involved are held accountable and face the appropriate sanctions.
We, the real people of Australia, will accept nothing less.
This is not the first time in the past 12 months that Tony Abbott has had given any hint of wanting to take over the ABC, showing a more right wing extreme view.
Mark Scott is wrong. That WAS the right call by the ABC. As Mallah was not arrested, I have to conclude nothing he said was illegal.I don’t expect any rational perspective from Tony Abbott on this, but I’m astounded that big shot lawyer Malcom Turbull has waded into this – when clearly it’s the worst case of an Australian prime minister bullying an individual expressing an individual point of view I have ever witnessed.
Lets give Shorten the short shift – put in Albo and have an early election.
Leftist = Any view not held by the current conservative government.
‘ Whose side are you on?’ is a perfectly legitimate question to ask. It has nothing to do with ‘Which political party do you support?’ but everything to do with “Which team do you support, ours (Australia’s) or theirs (ISIS).
1) “As someone said to me this week, free-speech arguments would be easier if you were always defending Martin Luther King,” Mr Scott said at a Centre for Corporate Public Affairs’ function. “At times, free-speech principles mean giving platforms to those with whom we fundamentally disagree.
That is exactly the point, but it is precisely what you and the ABC never do. Is he really that dense? Does he honestly not see what the rest of us are saying. It is that the ABC does not give platforms to those with whom they fundamentally disagree, unless they first stack the deck.
Free speech is wonderful concept. Pity we didn’t see the ABC covering the views of Geert Wilders, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Patrick Moore, numerous scientists who have grave reservations about the climate alarmists and the wayward policies being implemented
2) ABC managing director Mark Scott has compared extremist Zaky Mallah’s right to appear on Q&A with the campaign for free speech that flowed from the jihadist murder of 12 journalists from the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
To even mention Charlie Hebdo in such circumstance is beyond maddening. If I follow this analogy right, Zaki, according to Scott, is like those poor journalists who were murdered by jihadi gunmen, in that he is being deprived of his right to free speech (really, how? when? where?). And the jihadi murderers at Charlie Hebdo are likened to the people who object to Zaki, a former jihadist himself, being brought in to confront a government Minister on national television
3) “A state broadcaster is the communications arm of the Government. Its role is to communicate the messages of the Government—and certainly not to do anything that undermines the Government. But that has never been the role of a public broadcaster here, a public broadcaster formed in the tradition set out by Lord Reith the first head of the BBC, who spoke of a duty to inform, educate and entertain.”
By virtue of the fact that “the state” pays for the ABC at the moment, it is indeed a “state broadcaster”. It would be independent if it raised its finances independently. Mr Scott should either announce that the ABC is refunding the entirity of the $1.08bn and seeking public donations to operate, or accept the fact that by taking government money the ABC is, in fact, the state broadcaster; he cannot have it both ways.
so Peter,
you believe that the national broadcaster should pay for the attendance of a convicted fellon with terror links, some disgraceful public comments about women & rape who travelled overseas to fight for a foreign force in the Middle East, on a televised national debate and then give a platform to his views?
hmmm
The nut jobs will be here all day on this.
Part of the ABC’s role is to hold the government to account in an independent and fearless way, and it does a pretty good job of it. It’s not the government’s gazette.
Too many people scream “privatise” idiotically without having any concept of what the ABC does or why it does it.
Seriously, some clowns think that if you don’t support Abbott you don’t support Australia. Typical facist attitude. I love Australia and hate both ISIS and Tony Abbott.
“Who’s side are you on?” is just bullshit posturing, determined to divide everyone. If you vote Liberal you’re us. If you don’t you’re “them”. Even though of course this is EXACTLY what ISIS do, who let’s face it since they are religious fanatics, anti-science, anti-progressive ISIS too are just conservatives with a different language!
That’s right, Ginty. Mark Scott is being deceptive here. The issue is not which political side you are on but which side you are on between Australia and ISIS. If Mark Scott wants to be on the side of ISIS, then that’s fine but not at taxpayer;s expense. People forget that treason is still a crime and supporting and advocating an enemy of Australia like ISIS is a crime. Some think ISIS are just a nuisance. In fact, ISIS are much worse and more powerful than Nazi Germany under Hitler. Whereas Nazis pretty much were contained with some countries in Europe, ISIS has tentacles reaching into every western country. You have no idea what is coming.
Good lord Marty that is one of the stupidest things ever written on the internet.
75 years…and Australia would not be Australia without the ABC..this being a statement made on the 75th Birthday of broadcasting. And Abbott has the gall to belittle such a worthy cause….Abbott and his clan should take a long hard look at the many many mistakes they have made in their short time in politics, before trying to make such a big traumatic issue of this debate .
The ABC is our National Broadcaster, and a fine example of responsible journalism, documentary, and artistic endeavour. The fact that it operates without the support of the high end of town or the captains of industry, leaves it wide open to the accusation of leftist socialist leaning etc, when in fact, with the exception of one magnificently presented daily “little wireless program” (which I never miss if I can help it) the ABC remains refreshingly unbiased.
The PM should know better than to attack the ABC, but he seems to lack judgement in the operation of his thought to speech mechanism. A review of the entire Q&A storm, shows a sudden squall of wind and a puff of hot air, closed with a regrettably silly, yet generally harmless comment.
In my opinion, it was less than brilliant programming, but far from a major issue, it was in fact something less than a storm in a tea cup.
Mumbrella, I know you support the right for people to comment, but that post by Marty is just too dumb to give oxygen to.
“sub-editor” you said it exactly the way the ABC would want it: censor all views other than those of the inner city Leftists.
If it doesn’t comply with the Western values-hating, Australia-hating, women hating views of the ABC and their fellow travellers, then it gets cut.
In one line you embodied the problem, not the solution.
I don’t believe that the question of ‘which side are you on?’ is the best choice of words.
However, it does beggar belief that the public broadcaster would allow a man (albeit found not guilty) with extremist views who has proffered the wish to kill ASIO officers to take part in a publicly-funded program.
Regardless of politicising the issue, surely the error can be acknowledged by almost everyone except the ABC fan squad.
sub-editor, I suppose Mallah’s comments were not? You didn’t see what I was trying to do?
Birman, the ABC only holds a government to account when it’s a Liberal one. They pussyfoot around a Labor government.
The public are in a fanatical mood and you are going to have to excel in your primary task of reporting (not commenting) if you are to retain audience and prove you too haven’t been lighting fires you can’t put out ; trusting your own judgement about what’s worth reporting . Marks defence is sound and welcome but time has come for a response that cuts into the dumb idea of banishing evil. Time has come for the many ageing reactionaries in the ABC to let younger less cynical and snide people report on matters of the heart – so that we don’t all keep living in a war with the world way – young people if you haven’t noticed aren’t always a cynical as we are . Voltaire would hopefully see that all voices haven’t been heard on ABC because the dominant old myth and heresy of banishment of evil is now the grand good gospel and its momentum is growing and will keep growing while we feed it . We Christians are expected to be banished for promoting religion when Neiman points out we are both working the same territory – “where reason is missing” . In blessing the present configuration and blind reason limits , Mark fails to promote the vision that works and has worked to get us here ; the possibility of other programs that could grow and give better coverage of the open range than that often quickfix Q&A .Rather than limiting the vision to Voltaire , methinks we all outta go out with Waugh and seek to give seeding to more creativity and licence on his three channels – that way our precious ABC would not only be good , but would have many, many more scoops to be proud of. .Young people of Australia need to be reminded about why the glass is half full , not more glass half empty talk .
Beware the one that considers himself so self-righteous as to call others names and demands his version of the world be the only right one – for as he points his finger forward and waves it around to impress himself … he has three fingers pointing back towards him.
Yes of course Marty. That’s the best you can do?
Abbott’s ” Who’s side are you on?” just confirms the level of government in this country and his playground bully technique . It is the same tactic this govt used against Gillian Triggs . Sanctimonious, outrageous , inflammatory and win argument at all costs with a govt inquiry. What a waste of tax payers money in both cases. Where is the grown up debate ? And how about getting on with trying to create good govt policy instead of playing politics. A complete distraction to the main game.
By the way Marty that’s crap- have you watched the ABC’s The Killing Season on Rudd and Gillard ?
So if I’m understanding the commentary above…Mark Scott loves ISIS and anyone who disagrees is a ‘leftist socialist’ (as opposed to those right wing socialists?)? Also, opinion is way more important than fact. Got it, thanks.
My other take out is that there are a lot of people sitting around waiting for their crazy Google alerts to ping, who need to get a job or take up golf.
Marty, I’m fairly sure the regimes you refer to started by isolating themselves, then co-opting the media (forcibly), strengthening the military and cracking down on dissenting civilians. Fascism follows. Recognise this playbook? Is it happening here/now?
night woman, Labor are no longer in government so pretty safe to show THE KILLING SEASON now.
here_we_go_again so “cracking down on dissenting civilians” is how you describe beheading civilians?
It is odd how people think their political views are not biased, but anyone who disagrees with them is biased. If only they all put as much time and effort in trying to stay neutral as the ABC does, then maybe there would be fewer people making claims which have been proved over and over to be wrong.
On Q&A nobody said anything which even implied ISIL was anything but bad. But still there are people linking the ABC to ISIL and or the left, which have nothing to do with ISIL either. Mystifying just mystifying.
Brad, David, Tim, Mike, Marty …
… if you want the national broadcaster to be the mouthpiece of the national government then simply move to North Korea.
JG, you’re doing a Mark Scott and deliberately skewing my comments to feed your agenda. Where did I say the ABC have to be mouthpiece for the government. They must be independent of government and have every right to hold the government to account although in many cases it appears it likes to hold one type of government to count but that’s another issue. Please see Zaky Mallah’s recent YouTube video. The ABC invited, arranged travel and allowed him to ask a question on live TV, a convicted criminal who served time in jail for making threats to kill ASIO (gov’t) officers. That’s the issue. Nothing to do with free speech as many contend here.
Marty- I know Labor are no longer in power, thanks for telling me. But the Govt had a field day with The Killing Season ! They used it against Labor in question time! Then the Govt turns on the ABC with Q+A . Weird how you connect Mark Scott with ISIS and taxes. In fact it is an affront to do so- but that is free speech. He’s a former journo who previously worked for the State Liberal party in Govt before becoming a media executive. He’s hardly a hot head channelling his views on ISIS on air. Get real !
Marty, I included the word ‘if’. It is a subtlety of English that appears to have eluded you in your zealous defence of the incumbent government and attack on the ABC.
I have no agenda, apart from defence of the Australian Constitution, our rule of law, and protection of free speech.
Can I assume that you are as vitriolic against the other media that have also had Zaky Mallah on them, interviewed him, or published his comments – in the interest of balance of course. I’d love you to post links to that effect.
Also, Marty, I have a question for you – parallel but not directly connected. Do you think Bronwyn Bishop is being impartial as Speaker of the House?
Marty. Yes, Zaky Mallah has been in jail and yes, he has made threats to kill.However while he might not be a nice person, he is not a convicted criminal and has never served time in jail for making threats to kill ASIO (gov’t) officers.
While on the subject of thing you have got wrong, Mark Scott has never said or indicated he wants to be on the side of ISIS.
Fear mongering and radicalisation of youth – brought to you by the LNP
Apparently “bias is bad”, m’kay?
Surely the ultimate bias is an election.
Boy oh boy, once Tony gets rid of those elections (and the ABC and the ALP and the Greens) we can REALLY see Good Government.
Starting with those mutinous Doctors and Scientists.
Oh wait, didn’t Toto say “good government starts now” after a year of practice?
I figure everyone to the Left of the Coalition is, basically, everybody. Like, everyone South of the North Pole is a “Southie”. How much space IS actually to the Right of the LibNats – apart from that occupied by Bolt, Ackerman, Hadley and Jones?