Source: BBC News, January 29
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has criticised national broadcaster ABC for “taking everyone’s side but Australia’s”. Mr Abbott said the publicly-funded broadcaster should show “some basic affection for the home team”.
The ABC has been at the forefront of reports on abuse claims from asylum seekers and reports that Australia had spied on Indonesia.
The ABC had no immediate comment on Mr Abbott’s statements. However, the opposition said that the government should welcome media scrutiny.
Benefit of Doubt
Mr Abbott made the comments during an interview with radio station 2GB. He said he was “worried and concerned” by the ABC’s role in reporting spying claims in documents leaked by former CIA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents appeared to show that Australian spy agencies named the Indonesian president and other senior ministers as targets for telephone monitoring. The reports led to a diplomatic row, with Indonesia suspending military co-operation with Australia.
Mr Abbott also criticised the ABC’s coverage of allegations that Australian navy personnel had mistreated asylum seekers.
Acting Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek said it was right that the ABC scrutinised government.
Footage obtained by the ABC showed asylum-seekers being treated for burns that they said had been caused when they were forced to hold on to a hot boat engine. Indonesian police said some asylum-seekers had burn marks on their hands, but they did not know who had inflicted them.
The claims were strongly rejected by both the Australian military and government, which has offered to co-operate with an Indonesian investigation. “If there’s credible evidence, the ABC, like all other news organisations is entitled to report it,” Mr Abbott said. “[But] you can’t leap to be critical of your own country,” he said, adding that the ABC should be prepared to give the Australian navy “the benefit of the doubt”.
Welcome Scrutiny
Acting Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek said every government had “been subject to the close scrutiny of the ABC, and we should all welcome that”. “From emergency broadcasts in times of trouble to coverage of the events that shape our nation, the ABC is there, free for all Australians,” she said.
The number of asylum boats travelling to Australia from Indonesia rose in 2012 and the beginning of 2013.
“[Mr Abbott] should stop complaining about media coverage and start behaving like a prime minister,” she added.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said: “We need strong voices in parliament to stand up for the public’s right to an independent national broadcaster”.
Critics have accused the government of secrecy over asylum policy. The government has refused to comment on reports that the navy are towing asylum boats back to Indonesia. It has however recently issued an apology to Indonesia for “inadvertently” violating its waters on multiple occasions. The government has also limited information on asylum arrivals and vessel-related incidents to a weekly e-mail, citing operational needs.
The ABC charter describes the corporation as “the provider of an independent national broadcasting service”. In December, ABC managing director Mark Scott defended the ABC’s coverage of the spying allegations. “We are an independent media organisation and of course sometimes we will publish stories that politicians won’t be happy about,” he said. “That’s the role we have to play.”
Journalism and patriotism are incompatible. A public broadcaster must operate on the principles of inquiry, investigation and increasing understanding of reality, and not be motivated by narrow parochialism, jingoism, or preserving the status quo, regardless of consequences. That’s truly in the public interest.
Looking beyond the principles… Sadly, but realistically, given government mandates (however well executed or not) for keeping state secrets, negotiating with foreign powers, and crafting communications to lead and/or change public opinion, there will always be a friction with a professional, principled, and truly independent public broadcaster. In this age, maintaining Parliamentary budget allocations for programming leaves the relationship unstable and inherently conflictual. To many voters (not just political leaders) supporting government of the day (whatever day in Canada or Australia or Germany or Austria or …), a publicly funded broadcaster is suppose to cheer for the home team. They will never completely agree with each other about defining the breadth of the expected “cheer” or exact “home team”, but expect their legislators to carry this message. This will never square with “arms-length” public broadcasting purists. Safest “refuge” is donor/ad revenue combinations for programming and (in Canada at least) government funding for the infrastructure that ensures geographic access.
C’est le ton qui fait la musique. Public broadcasters should not sound like cheerleaders.
Understand you logic as to why they should not! But if you accept public funds for programming, and the core supporters of the government believe and articulate the opposite view, the public broadcaster is “vulnerable”.; Vulnerable to the charge of unaccountable, undemocratic, and elitism. Is it only public broadcasters that are to be kept at arms length from performance expectations of the funding agency? How do public broadcasters, unlike other funding recipients, get to dictate the terms of their allocation? These are the questions from those that may not be friends of Canadian broadcasting, but have a legitimate say in Canadian governance. All I try to say above it that a head on confrontation is potentially a loose-loose proposition for those that want to protect public broadcasting in its traditional form (me too!), and alternative funding constructs are the best way to go forward.
It is in the public interest that public funds should be used for purposes as impartial and untainted as is humanly possible.
“Impartial” and “untainted” are very subjective not evidence-based. If the alternative opinion is perceived as “criminal”, impartial treatment can be viewed as morally misguided or even “supporting the enemy”. Publics do not decide on government budgets, governments do, and they, not the grant recipient, define public interest.
Mr. Lotin - you can have a government like China’s - choking, controlling, suppressing - or you can have a government, mandated by its own citizens, to support public broadcasting, which is mandated to be honest and informative, and free of government meddling and control - EVEN if the government provides public funding. You choose. You are suggesting, because the government funds the programs, it therefore has a right to dictate content. Welcome to China.
oops, I should add, I do understand your point about governments expecting support from their public agencies but actually I do not agree. In Canada, we have always looked to the CBC for independent broadcasting. I do not agree that citizens concede the government should have its public broadcasters support. And when you suggest other funding for the CBC - will then won’t that open up the door for private funders to influence content?
PBS has private funders, and yet PBS appears to be independent in its journalistic/public affairs/news programming.