Nauru’s ban on ABC splits commercial media
As Nauru's ban on ABC journalists continues, Michelle Grattan explains the split is has revealed in Australian media.
The extraordinary ban imposed by Nauru on the ABC covering the Pacific Islands Forum – or visiting that country at all – has laid bare the raw and fractious fault lines in the Australian media.
Journalists and commercial organisations are split over how to respond, between those who believe there should be solidarity with the ABC, and those maintaining that what happens to the ABC is its problem alone.
News Corp is not unhappy to see the ABC, its perennial target, disadvantaged and intends to extract benefit for itself from the situation.
The federal parliamentary press gallery committee – which mostly looks after routine matters affecting its members – has taken a defiant stand, which has been endorsed by Fairfax.
The media contingent that was to cover Malcolm Turnbull’s trip had been restricted to a “pool” of three (because that’s all the PM’s plane had room for, although Nauru is confining the number of media).
The gallery had nominated an ABC cameraman, and a reporter and photographer supplied by the news agency AAP. Footage, reports and pictures would be shared with other outlets.
After the Nauru ban – which Tony Walker has suggested is likely driven more by the ABC’s coverage of corruption allegations than its stories about asylum seekers – the gallery committee decided that if the ABC couldn’t go, the pool would be disbanded.
It said in a statement issued on Wednesday by its president David Crowe, chief political correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, that if the ABC was banned, no one should go.
A further statement from the Press Gallery on the Nauru ban on the ABC.
If the ABC is banned, the pool should not go. pic.twitter.com/gRLQloweE4
— David Crowe (@CroweDM) 4 July 2018
“The decision by the government of Nauru to pick and choose the journalists who cover the Pacific Islands Forum is an appalling restriction on press freedom,” the statement said.
“If the ban is not reversed, the media pool will be disbanded. If one cannot go, none will go.
‘’We oppose the Nauru edict because it is wrong in this instance and because it sets a dangerous precedent. What other Australian media might be banned from a similar group by another government in future? We stand for a free press, not a banned one.”
Those on the gallery committee come from the ABC, News Corp, Fairfax, The Guardian, and Sky, but it is not suggested the statement represented a unanimous view.
The gallery stand was immediately backed by Fairfax but rejected by News Corp.
Executive editor of the SMH and The Age, James Chessell, said: “The Age and Herald support the decision made by the Parliamentary Press Gallery. Any attempt to restrict press freedom is an affront to all newsrooms.”
The Daily Telegraph’s political editor, Sharri Markson was blunt.
She tweeted: “News Corp does not support this ludicrous ban by the press gallery on covering a PM’s trip to Nauru simply because an ABC cameraman cannot go. So, you can read all the news from the trip in News Corp papers, like @dailytelegraph and @australian but no where else.”
As things stand, News Corp is set to take the places on the Turnbull plane, filing for its outlets, rather than providing “pool” copy.
The New Zealand parliamentary press gallery has condemned Nauru’s decision. It said the decision “follows already restrictive reporting conditions, limiting the number of journalists who can attend this important regional summit.
’‘While infrastructure constraints play a role in limiting pool numbers, we are appalled by this attempt to control media coverage”.
A statement from the NZ Parliamentary Press Gallery, in relation to Nauru’s decision to ban the ABC pic.twitter.com/P0zg8K5wWz
— Stacey Kirk (@StaceyKirkNZ) 3 July 2018
Nauru has long played hardball with media it doesn’t likes, notably notably through its visa charge.
This week Sky’s Laura Jayes said on Twitter: “I went to Nauru in 2016 when it was charging a non-refundable visa application fee of $8000. It was waived for Sky on the condition that we not report it. We did.”
Malcolm Turnbull said this week he would not engage in “megaphone” diplomacy. Behind the scenes the government has made representations to Nauru – how strongly is another matter – but with no effect.
Turnbull does not want to offend Nauru, for obvious reasons – it has been one linchpin in Australia’s border security policy. And many of the right of his party wouldn’t want him to be seen to be prosecuting the ABC’s cause too forcefully.
Michelle Grattan, professorial fellow, University of Canberra. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
It would be so much easier to just put another camera operator on the plane rather than engage in this childish foot-stamping. In the end, the action by the Canberra press gallery is one of self-interest – not in the interest of the public at large. You have to wonder who is running our media outlets these days, the appointed management or the hissy inmates?
User ID not verified.
one day soon, the wheel will fall off news ltd and it won’t be subbies being pink slipped. Oh wait.. they already sacked the photographers didn’t they. no solidarity like no solidarity eh, ex ABC. Is there anyone left in the house who remembers what the press pool was? Refusing to join the boycott and selling the footage to your own paper only, yea… Tough call dude. So brave.
User ID not verified.
The image of the Liberal Party leader travelling with only News Ltd reporters is a fitting image for the decline of both organisations.
User ID not verified.
The government (whose BILLIONS of $ for torturing refugees) have kept the Nauru economy afloat are in full support of the ban and News Ltd will once again suck up the grubby stories from the floor and produce a grotty filthy biased few pages.
There once was a time when journalists and people with ethics worked for News… I honestly dont think there are any left now.
User ID not verified.
I know a heap of people who have left in the last few years. The ignorant, desperate and the ‘I don’t give a fck about others’ appear to remain…
User ID not verified.