No hope for doco at ABC
After reviewing its original position, the ABC will not air the documentary about the Israel/Palestine conflict Hope in a Slingshot.
Senator Scott Ludlam brought up the issue with ABC director Mark Scott at a recent Senate Estimates hearing, and the final response was negative.
Earlier this year, Ronin Films director Andrew Pike said the ABC had withdrawn a formal offer to acquire the documentary –because it conflicted with the public broadcaster’s policy of impartiality. Ronin is distributing the doco on DVD.
Last month, director Inka Stafrace even created an onilne petition to get her documentary on the air. Yesterday, in a message to media and supporters, Stafrace said that communicatoion with the ABC had 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,” she said.
The following is part of a transcript from the Environment and Communications Estimates special hearing: ABC Wednesday 27th October 2010:
Senator LUDLAM—All right. I will not pursue that further if that material is in the public domain. I will
go back and have a look at what you have tabled. You are probably expecting me to ask you about this. I think
we have had two conversations now about the documentary Hope in a Slingshot, which probably provides the
counterpoint to the conversation you have just been having with Senator Abetz. Can you provide us with an
update of whether the ABC has reconsidered its position and how you have gone about finding some other
points of view to balance out the point of view in that documentary?
Mr Scott—We reviewed it and we will not be showing it. I think when we first reviewed it there were
questions as to the plurality of viewpoints, whether in fact it took a certain perspective and how under our
editorial policies we would look to balance that. The filmmaker had some strong views on that. I think you
expressed some views on it. I was questioned on it by the filmmaker at a public forum in Melbourne a month
or two ago. But it has been reviewed by our television division. We get inundated with documentaries—well,
‘inundated’ is probably too strong a word, but we have a very significant number of documentaries.
Documentary filmmakers approach us with films. I think finally the television division came to the view that it
was not to the standard that they would want to acquire.There were some other films that were raised. I think two of the three that were raised by the filmmaker that
could be purchased were not in English. But fundamentally the television division came to a view around the
quality of the film. They did not feel it was particularly compelling for the kinds of audiences that we would
be seeking on ABC1, and that was the final judgment on it.
Senator LUDLAM—But it was initially accepted. You said the issue was quality, so it was nothing to do
with the political views?
Mr Scott—I think Mr Millett has had some conversations on this too. I think finally they came to that view
irrespective of editorial policy issues. That was not finally the driving force in their decision. They finally
came to a view that they just did not think it was a particularly compelling film.
Senator LUDLAM—Are you aware that the producers have updated and edited the film to address the
interpretations that they believe have been placed on it?
Mr Scott—I am not sure which edit they have seen, but I understood that they did review the film again
after the questioning and tried to look at it with a fresh set of eyes. We have some new people in key roles in
our television division—a new head of factual, a new controller of ABC1 and ABC2. I am not quite sure
whether the final sign-off has come, but they have decided to pass. We pass on most documentaries, really. But
that is the judgment that has been made about this one.
Senator LUDLAM—Yes, there are plenty that we do not raise, and this one caught our interest in
particular because it was accepted.
Mr Scott—I understand that.
Senator LUDLAM—You are aware of that. Step us through how you balance this out. You commission or
acquire what you call opinion content, which does express a certain point of view.
Mr Scott—Yes, and we do run them. We have run Richard Dawkins. We have run Dick Smith. I will
explain what we often do, though, if it is contentious and opinionated—and there is a place for opinion on the
ABC. It is allowed. It is in our editorial policies. You want to have some debate. So what you often do, as we
have done with Dawkins, as we did with the Dick Smith piece, is have a discussion afterwards. You have a
forum afterwards. So, actually, if you are going to run a documentary like that, it needs to have sufficient
weight that we are able not just to show it but often to host a forum afterwards for the range of views. I think
the feeling was that this film was not up to the standard for that kind of treatment.
Senator LUDLAM—Can you advise, then, how the program Death in the Med—or Collision Course, I
think it is also called—satisfied your editorial policies?
Mr Scott—Which one, sorry?
Senator LUDLAM—Death in the Med. I presume ‘Med’ refers to the Mediterranean. Was there a forum
that followed that one?
Mr Scott—I am not sure—what was that one about?
Senator LUDLAM—I believe they rioted in the UK when it was screened because it was seen to be—
Mr Scott—I think that was the one that I referred to Senator Abetz about earlier.
Senator LUDLAM—Quite possibly.
Mr Scott—We did have some complaints around that program.
Senator LUDLAM—Was there a forum after that one?
Mr Scott—No, there was no forum after that.
Senator LUDLAM—I struggle to understand how on the one hand you can run opinion content—and it is
great that you do, it does not matter whether we agree with it or not—
Mr Scott—Yes.
Senator LUDLAM—and on the other hand you have got an impartiality requirement. How are those—
Mr Scott—If you are talking about Collision Course—
Senator LUDLAM—Yes, that is the one.
Mr Scott—That was the one that we received 90 alleged complaints of pro-Israeli bias—
Senator LUDLAM—Were they complaints, or alleged complaints?
Mr Scott—They were alleged complaints. But the program was reviewed by audience consumer affairs,
who advised that the program was balanced and that they believed those complaints were without basis.
However, there are some complaints that are still being worked through. That went to air relatively recently.
That was a BBC production that we bought in. I think it is an example of what I tried to indicate to Senator
Abetz, that our Middle-Eastern coverage is often controversial and you get criticism from both sides.
Senator LUDLAM—Certainly.
Mr Scott—I think if we had come to an editorial judgment about that program, or our television or news
division which is responsible for Foreign Correspondent had come to a view that this was opinion, rather than
a topical and factual program or news program, then it would have needed a different treatment. That was not
the judgment they came to about that program. It might be that some people who watched it have a different
view, but that is the judgment our television team and news team have had to make.
