With Justin Milne gone, how does the ABC go about restoring its crucial independence?
With the intensity of the ABC’s headlines set to (finally) die down, the University of Melbourne’s Andrew Dodd wonders how the organisation can recover in this crossposting from The Conversation.
The ABC’s former chairman, Justin Milne, has propelled himself from obscurity to infamy in just four days. Along the way, he has ended the tenure of the ABC’s first female managing director, prompted two federal inquiries, revealed the dysfunctional relationship between the national broadcaster’s board and its upper management, and laid bare the politicised climate in which the ABC operates.
But on the positive side, it’s just possible that he has opened up a discussion that’s sorely needed about the independence of the ABC and the pressures that work to undermine it.
Milne’s position became untenable following leaks that appeared to reveal serial interventions in day-to-day management. These included petitioning former managing director Michelle Guthrie to sack senior journalist Emma Alberici and to “shoot” political editor Andrew Probyn because the government didn’t like them.
So let’s see, those people who have complained about the number of inquiries the ABC has been subjected to over the past few years want to have yet another inquiry? OK, let’s do that. First question: how much is the ABC worth to the Australian public and how much is that public willing to pay? In the UK the BBC is funded by a licence. Should we do the same in Australia to provide certainty and freedom from political interference? Currently the UK licence is around A$275 per year per household. Are you willing to pay that to get an independent ABC? Next question. Who should be on the Board? Stephen Conroy introduced a non-partisan approach that recruited not one person with broadcasting experience during the whole time he was communications minister. Mitch Fifield had the opportunity to appoint someone with broadcasting experience, but instead deliberately chose someone simply because she was a woman (with no broadcasting experience). Third question. What is the ABC? Its Act and Charter say it’s a ‘broadcast’ organisation with the responsibility to “inform and entertain”, but two successive MDs have called it a “news organisation” instead. Is this right? Then we’ll need to amend the ABC Act to reflect that. There’s a lot more, but others have complained that my posts have become long and boring, so I’ll leave it there.
Like motherhood, editorial independence has no opponents. The ABC has more of it than most, thanks to the very odd decision of Mr Scott to promote commentary where the abc practice had been to allow none.
This is how ms alberici, who plainly is not experienced with financial reporting, got her notoriety.
Much is made of political complaint.
What the abc does not mention is viewer and listener complaint. Many of us are unhappy with the sloppiness of reporting that fails to actually report. There is much evidence of personal preferences. There are agendas. These things we can see. This is why people turn to other places like sbs for news.
The abc can have all the independence it wants. It has to earn an audience.
With News ltd having gone over the wall with obsessions that seem very petty. And fairfax virtually dead. The abc is very important. The pity is that its denizens don’t seem to really know what that means.
“…how does the ABC go about restoring its crucial independence?”
I’d suggest a good start would be one Board member at a time.
Then take the Board nomination process out of the hands of the current Minister.
Agreed. What a joke this whole board appointment thing is. It goes back to 1972 when Gough Whitlam sacked the entire board and replaced them with Labor “mates”. Since then, every government copied Gough and appointed their own mates until Stephen Conroy created the “independent” panel – except that was stacked with “his” mates and they didn’t appoint a single person with broadcast management experience the whole time Conroy was minister. Then Turnbull and Fifield come along, replace two of the four panel members with their own mates and then proceed to ignore their recommendations. A pox on both their houses.