tijaco

our public broadcaster is broken

The ABC has to be the most insidious part of the Australian media landscape.

Many believe the ABC to be a “left-wing” organisation, whatever “left” means. Many others believe it to be “balanced”. They are both wrong, but this perception is what makes the ABC such an important part of the propaganda model in Australia. If we had a landscape made up solely of Murdoch and Channel Nine, the public might catch on to the narratives being one-sided. Because we have this public broadcaster which drills into the social issues that many on the “left” concern themselves with, we can justify the status quo without looking deeper.

The story of the ABC is one of toxic relationships. Here’s what tends to happen. The ABC gets their funding cut by the Liberal government. Now, they are scared to get even more funding cut, so they pander to the Liberals by easing them through interviews and attacking Labor at every chance. We all know that the Liberals will continue to cut their funding anyway. With such an effective strategy, why would you stop? You would think Labor, being attacked on a daily basis by the ABC, would at least stand up for themselves. Instead, Labor does the predictable thing, promises to roll back the cuts and fund the ABC properly. This is a popular position, but a self-defeating one.

The most popular shows on the ABC are Insiders and Q&A.

Insiders is run by former Sky News presenter David Speers and rarely has a panellist outside of the mainstream media bubble. By inviting these “media elites” on to the show, the conversation never veers outside of stale mainstream media talking points. There is more analysis of politics as if it were a spectator sport than any policy or solutions-based discussion.

The only time I have seen David Speers go hard on any Liberal politician was on the issue of cuts to ABC funding – a little self-interested I thought. When a Labor politician is interviewed however, the gloves come out. I have no problem with hostile interviews, but when the balance is so skewed it calls the whole organisation into question.

Q&A seems to run a policy of never discussing substantiative policy with real experts who have freedom to criticise. Oftentimes instead of debating the solutions to problems, they debate whether there is a problem at all. This is a great technique for anyone looking to convince a public that the status quo is still a feasible option. This is most evident on the issue of climate change, with a Liberal MP often invited to spurt their coal lobby talking points for half the airtime.

Another technique deployed at Q&A is one in which both a Labor and Liberal politician are present, and a social issue is raised. The questioner and often other panellists will take the moral high ground on the issue, raise the emotions of the show and serve the function of painting both major parties the same in their lacking on the social issue. This was particularly evident in the Q&A on Black Lives Matter, but there is rarely an episode in which some social issue is not brought up and utilised in this way. This reinforces the narrative that both major parties are the same, serving the purpose of pushing a socially conscious left-leaning voter away from Labor, toward the Greens and thereby helping the Liberals.

There is no surprise that the ABC should have such a Liberal Party bias. The Liberals are in office almost 70% of the time and are therefore in charge of their funding. Just like a lowly Herald Sun journalist knows their place and their role, presenters at the ABC know exactly which buttons they are required to press, and on which issues they should tread lightly. Even if the Labor Party was in power more often, it would still be in the ABC’s interest to present a Liberal Party narrative, or at least a Greens narrative which will undermine Labor. The Liberal Party always has the implicit threat of cutting funding, and more often than not follow through with it – there is no such threat from Labor.

But what is the Labor Party supposed to do about the ABC? Should they continue their campaign to restore their funding and get back “Our ABC”, or should they abandon that cause? The ABC, if it is going to be run properly, needs adequate funding. But it also needs a complete overhaul in how it does its business. There are many parallels here with the humanities sector of universities. With far too much focus on identity politics and social issues, it is tempting to let them rot with even less funding than before. But both the humanities and a public broadcaster are incredibly important when done well.

My preference would be the outlining of a more visionary alternative – a media landscape that is diverse and competitive. This could be implemented in many different ways, but the potential for independent and crowdfunded media is huge. In this way, the media landscape can be democratised, and the propaganda model diminished in its power. The state of YouTube is a good example of this. There’s a large number of different channels with different perspectives, and authenticity tends to win out over corporate garbage. That is, until the corporatized algorithms get involved. But there are certainly good lessons to take from a platform like this.

The ABC being funded by the government will always have its own biases toward the government itself such that it continues its funding. If a crowdfunded media landscape is funded, they will not be dependent on this government funding and therefore will not play this insidious role.

The ABC needs to be funded properly and given real independence in order to report the news as it happens – this is what the public service is there for. But the content, especially the political analysis, should be handed over to real independent media. We are a long way from even shifting public opinion to considering this an option, but I think this is a key part of building a better democracy.