Game of Sabotage:
The Culture War for the ABC
Let’s say you’re a conservative MP and you don’t really like the national broadcaster. You think it’s a bit too woke and progressive and you’re over the way it gives voice to sections of the community that don’t like what your government is doing. What can you do to rein it in and make it behave the way you’d like?
Well, you could do what some New South Wales Liberal Party members did in 2018 by putting up a motion at a state party conference calling for the ABC to be privatised. You might even find, as they did, that there's a fair bit of support in the room. You could pass the motion, hoot and holla with acclamation and wait for the media to amplify the vote to become a national media story. Yes, you could do that. But if you do, you should also safely predict that no action will follow, and the ABC will likely remain
stubbornly in public hands.
Back in the 1990s, Prime Minister John Howard's chief of staff, Grahame Morris, said something very telling about conservatives' relationship with the ABC. He described the national broadcaster as “our enemy talking to our friends.” It's a quote that's cited often because it hints at the reasons for the coalition's suspicions about the ABC, while perfectly summing up the frustrations conservatives feel whenever they attempt to curb its influence.
While quite a few coalition MPS dislike the ABC, most of their voters, whether they're from the bush or the suburbs, tend to love its programming, even though some might have reservations about some of its news and current affairs coverage. Attacking the ABC, therefore, risks alienating a significant number of supporters, as well as a large proportion of swinging voters. So, the last thing the Liberal and National Parties want is for the ABC'S funding, let alone something as radical as its privatisation, to become an election issue.
So how does a conservative MP – or a Coalition Government – bring about change at the ABC, especially when the corporation is set up to be editorially independent of whatever government is in power? And conversely, what sorts of threats should ABC supporters be looking out for, especially at a time when the federal government is keen to make savings as a way of recouping some of the billions spent on the Covid-19 pandemic?
Well, it turns out there are several
John Howard's chief of staff, Grahame Morris, said something very telling about conservatives' relationship with the ABC…“our enemy talking to our friends ."
ways federal governments “manage” the ABC, many of which have been on display in recent years. These tactics are not the exclusive province of conservative governments, but coalition parties tend to employ them more readily, and with much greater intensity.
Do Not Pass Go…
The first way is to reduce its funding. This has been the principal strategy since the election of the Abbott Government in 2013. The second way is for the government to deny it has reduced funding, again something we've seen a lot of recently.
So, let's explore these a little, aware that as we do, we're entering fraught and contested territory. The 2014 budget was one of the defining moments of the Abbott Government. Who can forget that image of Mathias Cormann and Joe Hockey smoking cigars on the eve of the budget that cut billions from commonwealth expenditure, including tens of millions from the ABC, despite a pre-election commitment that it wouldn't do so.
By its own estimate, the ABC lost “$64million of ongoing cuts” that year. In the same budget the ABC'S 10-year agreement with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to deliver the Australia Network international TV service was terminated.
The combined cuts led to the loss of 400 jobs. The corporation's support functions were targeted, followed by the closure of the Adelaide production studios and five of the smallest regional radio stations. In addition, some statebased sport coverage disappeared and fewer concerts were recorded for classic FM. The ABC also wound back broadcasts to international audiences, particularly in Asia, where Radio Australia had long been a respected voice.
Then came the budget of 2018, when an “indexation pause” was imposed on the corporation for the term of its next triennial funding period, which began the following year. This meant funding allocated to accommodate CPI increases – expected to amount to $84 million over three years – would not be paid.
The ABC concluded it couldn't find any more efficiencies without reducing services and recently announced another raft of cuts, including its flagship 7.45am radio news bulletin and the ABC Life website. The travel budget was slashed by 25 per cent and independent screen production lost $5 million. A review of news programming was also announced, which is never a good sign. Most importantly, another 250 jobs were declared redundant, although some of these jobs might end up being saved.
ABC managing director David Anderson summed up the collective effect of the 2014 and 2018 budgets like this: “In real terms this means our operational funding will be more than
The first way is to reduce its funding.
This has been the principal strategy since the election of the Abbott Government in 2013. The second way is for the government to deny it has reduced funding.
The Government has created for the ABC the same precarity the rest of Australia’s media is feeling.
10 percent lower in 2021-22 than it was in 2013.”
But it's not in a Government's interest to admit it's cutting the ABC'S budget. So, a sort of gaslighting has been going on, with key politicians, backed by right-of-centre commentators, arguing the budget has in fact risen. Communications Minister Paul Fletcher told a press conference "If you look at the numbers in the budget papers, the ABC'S funding is rising. It's all laid out in the budget papers." Prime Minister Scott Morrison was standing beside him and was asked whether he'd guarantee there would be no further cuts. He replied, “There are no further cuts because there are no cuts.”
Like it has on many occasions, the ABC became a political football, and was kicked up and down the field by supporters and critics. The ABC/RMIT Fact check unit concluded Fletcher's assertion that funding had risen was “misleading” because he had “neglected to mention that ABC funding is projected to decline in nominal terms in 2022-23, at the beginning of the next cycle”, and, “more importantly, in making the claim, the minister has ignored the issue of real funding, which takes into account inflation.”
This was challenged by Fletcher, who argued Fact Check was “riddled with errors” and was “playing games” by selectively quoting data. Fact check retorted that it had used several sources and stood by its claim. It also pointed out for a second time that Fletcher had omitted key data in a tweet which would have revealed that the ABC'S budget was set to fall in both nominal and real terms in 2022/23.
But seriously, why is he bothering to argue this way? The 2018 budget, in which the indexation pause was imposed, was explicit about what was going on. It referred to the measures as “savings” and “reductions” and stated that money earmarked for the ABC was being “redirected” elsewhere. In other words, they were cuts.
The 2018 budget papers said: “This measure reduces funding to the ABC by $14.623 million in 2019-20; $27.842 million in 2020-21; and $41.284 million in 2021-22. And it concluded, “the savings resulting from these efficiencies will be redirected to other Communications and the Arts portfolio priorities and to broader budget repair.”
Through these cuts the Government has created for the ABC the same precarity the rest of Australia's media is feeling. But digital disruption and Facebook algorithms are not the cause of these job losses.
Seen another way, the savings seem small, when compared to the enormous sums being provided in various Covid-19 stimulus packages. They are hard to fathom for other reasons too. They‘re occurring in a period when we're witnessing the near-decimation of commercial newsrooms in regional centres and the continual consolidation of national media companies.
But wait, there are other ways of curtailing the activities of the ABC.
Inquire, Review, Report – Repeat
Another approach is to discredit and attack individual broadcasters, especially if they critique a government
policy. Ask former senior economics reporter Emma Alberici or Canberra Press Gallery journalist Andrew Probyn what it's like to be attacked by a minister, with the full backing of a government behind them.
Seasoned journalists can generally withstand such pressure, but they also need to devote energy to defending their position, often in seemingly endless debates about interpretation and nuance. Maybe they'll be the subject of a ministerial letter to the press, replete with assertions about sloppy reporting or bias. Ministers for communication tend to do this regularly.
Sometimes reporters are unlucky enough to be subjected to another tool used by governments, the complaints process. Former Howard Government communications minister, Richard Alston, was well known for his ubiquitous complaints, each of which required detailed and time-consuming responses. Each one chipped away at the ABC'S confidence and boldness to report without fear or favour.
Another strategy is to impose inordinate scrutiny and demand seemingly endless compliance through inquiries and reviews and audits, which each demand considerable resources and attention.
Since 2003, the ABC says it has faced 14 internal or external reviews. Even the internal reviews are onerous and driven by a government-imposed demand for greater efficiencies.
To name just a few, there was a Macquarie Bank Review to benchmark the ABC against international broadcasters in 2003, the Mcgarrity Review on production and resources in 2004, the KPMG Adequacy and Efficiency Review in 2006, the Production Review in 2007, the Mcgrath Nicol Capital Review on the ABC'S integrated capital strategy in 2008, the BCG review of support activity in 2010, the Department of Communications review of ABC and SBS efficiency in 2014, the PWC Efficiency Review in the same year and the ABC Strategy Review in 2017.
But sometimes these reviews only serve to highlight the value of the ABC. Numerous audits, conducted by hard-headed businessmen appointed from commercial media outlets have surprised the government by returning with the finding that the ABC represents very good value for money.
On other occasions they make recommendations that arguably fall outside the scope of the review. The former head of Foxtel, Peter Tonagh, and the former acting chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, Richard Bean, concluded their review in March 2019 with suggestions that the ABC close down some of its lifestyle programming because they weren't core charter functions.
Game of Mates
Another strategy is to stack the ABC board with supporters in the hope that this will lead to a change of programming or, better still a change of culture. The Howard Government did just that, installing conservatives, such as Donald Mcdonald, Judith Sloan and Michael Kroger.
But that didn't produce the desired
Since 2003, the ABC says it has faced 14 internal or external reviews.
Milne wanted Emma Alberici sacked and the “shooting” of Andrew Probyn because the coalition disliked their reporting.
results, so next came a group of cultural warriors, including Keith Windschuttle, Janet Albrechtsen and Ron Brunton. The ALP had not always been above the odd stack when it had been in government, but had never done it on the same scale, and to its credit did reform the system by creating an independent panel to recommend candidates to the minister.
But the panel's recommendations are often ignored and the coalition appoints the people it wants. For example, in 2017 the then minister, Mitch Fifield, ignored a list of respected media professionals including former SBS managing director, Shaun Brown and TV producer Sandra Levy, and opted instead for the chair of the Minerals Council of Australia, Vanessa Guthrie. She became one of five members on the nine-member board at that time who had been appointed outside the process that was designed to prevent board stacking.
When you have a stacked board, it's easier to appoint the type of managing director who is prepared to take up the cudgels against the ABC. This is what happened in March 2000 when the former Liberal Party staffer, Jonathan Shier, was appointed as ABC Managing Director.
Shier had limited broadcasting experience in Europe but his major qualification appeared to be his determination to change the ABC'S culture.
Soon after starting he described himself to a packed meeting of ABC staff as a “mini-media mogul” and went on a sacking spree, throwing out dozens of senior managers. But he wasn't able to sustain the blitz and resigned before he was sacked by the same board that installed him just twenty months earlier.
The most striking recent example of political interference occurred in September 2018, when ABC Chairman, Justin Milne, led a board revolt against the then managing director, Michelle Guthrie. But soon after her dismissal Milne was forced to join her, after Guthrie revealed the ways Milne had worked behind the scenes to placate the then Turnbull Government by calling for the dismissal of prominent ABC reporters.
Milne wanted Emma Alberici sacked and the “shooting” of Andrew Probyn because the coalition disliked their reporting. He was worried how the Government might treat the ABC if it was re-elected in 2019 – which of course it was. He also railed against Triple J's decision to move its Hottest 100 broadcast from Australia Day in recognition of the objections by Indigenous communities.
The chapter was ugly and revealing, but it did at least prompt a discussion about the importance of independence and the nature of the political climate in which the national broadcaster operates.
Grind the Axe
There was another recent example of politicising and curtailing the ABC when the Government did a deal with One Nation senator Pauline Hanson, who agreed to back controversial changes to media ownership rules if the government launched an inquiry into the ABC. Hanson was annoyed about the ABC'S coverage of her re-election strategies and was out for revenge.
In May 2018, the government delivered by subjecting the corporation to a review on competitive neutrality. This was all about questioning whether the ABC, as a public broadcaster, should be allowed to replicate services provided by commercial media, and whether it has an unfair competitive advantage because it receives taxpayer funding. The inquiry focused on news and current affairs, because that's the division that Hanson was unhappy about.
But this had also been high on the agenda of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp because digital disruption had eroded its profits and forced a move to online platforms, where it was now competing with the ABC for audiences. So again, the ABC had to defend its territory, justify its existence and fend off its critics. The inquiry concluded that the ABC'S activities did not unfairly disadvantage its commercial competitors.
Another way of undermining the ABC might be to leave it out of initiatives designed to combat digital disruption. This is happening now in proposed legislation to establish a mandatory bargaining code to force Google and Facebook to pay for the news and current affairs content they take from Australian media companies. Both the ABC and SBS have been excluded because they are public broadcasters, although both will benefit from greater disclosure about the algorithms that determine how news material is prioritised on online sites.
As the national public broadcaster, the ABC should be seen as a bulwark against the loss of public interest and public record journalism. It needs protection because it provides media diversity and because it has a mission to produce the sorts of programming commercial media won't touch, such as coverage of science, the environment and a wide range of other issues.
It provides forums for national conversations at a time when media is becoming increasingly fractious.
It is still our most trusted source of news, while unregulated social media platforms flood the market with fakery and rumour.
But clearly its capacity to be all these things diminishes under the weight of reduced funding and intense and sustained political pressure. And now, it has to be watched especially closely as the Government seeks to fight its way back towards that elusive budget surplus after the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Governments are stewards of public broadcasting. They need to prod for greater efficiency and demand value for service. Of course, they should also be allowed to speak up about programming and complain through the proper processes when they perceive errors or bias.
But governments also need to encourage and defend the ABC. They should nurture it and protect it from political attack. And they should know when to leave it well alone so it can focus on its job of serving Australian audiences, the thing the national broadcaster does so well and the role the public wants it to keep performing.