Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch Dog

GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG - ISSUE NO. 33

23 OCTOBER 2009

NANCY‘S PICKS OF THE WEEK

▪ Virginia Trioli Throws The Switch To Signage

Nancy, being deaf, was just so impressed by Virginia Trioli’s elaborate isn’t-he-a-nutter? hand gesture following her interview with National Party Senator Barnaby Joyce on ABC 2 News Breakfast last Monday.  In fact, Nancy had not seen such hammery since her days in primary (kennel) school.  If only Ms Trioli and the other oh-so-many leftist or left of centre ABC presenters would give such signage following every interview, it would make TV watching so much more understandable for the deaf and more besides.

Nancy was also impressed with Ms Trioli’s apology the following morning, when she regretted her actions.  Fair enough.  However, the co-host of News Breakfast did not explain precisely why she regards Senator Joyce as barking mad. Does she have a similar attitude to everyone with whom she disagrees?

▪  David Barnett on Girl Power

Whole on the topic of ABC TV presenters - present or past - Nancy recently came across conservative curmudgeon David Barnett’s column in The Canberra Times of 27 August 2009.  Here Mr Barnett reflected that, at the November 2007 election, “John Howard was beaten in his own electorate by a girl reporter from the ABC”.  When Maxine McKew defeated John Howard in Bennelong, she was aged 54 - around the age of John Howard when he became prime minister.   David Barnett OBE was born in ‘31. [What century? Ed.]

PETER CRAVEN’S (OBSEQUIOUS) WEEK

There is much to be said for the Fairfax Media’s recent decision to share copy between the literary pages of The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.  This made it possible last weekend for Herald readers to partake of the intellectual feast their Melbourne counterparts had experienced when Peter Craven reviewed Gerald Murnane’s novel Barley Patch in The Age a couple of weeks earlier (see Issue 31).  Consequently Herald readers were able to readily discover Mr Craven’s reflections on the “lugubrious adumbration of an ambition deferred” along with his assessment that “Murnane is the ghostly swagman of his own much-vaunted interiorities”.

A reader has drawn attention to Peter Craven’s truly stunning “Diary” essay in the 3 October 2009 issue of The Spectator Australia which commenced: “It was a week when you felt like Henry James, accepting more invitations than there were days in the calendar”. There followed a series of serial name-droppings. Your man Peter had dined “at the house of Sigrid Thornton and Tom Burstall for the birthday of my friend, Colin Oehring”.  Your man reflected on getting drunk “years ago” with Jill Singer - they “drank the sun out of the sky and whitewash from the walls”. They must have been thirsty. Your man, in just one week, also caught up with Jane Badler and Shane Maloney and Kamila Shamsie and Stephen Hains and Philip Hensher and Alexander Waugh - and then met the entire panel of the Q&A program which was filmed live in Melbourne. Wow.

It seems that Peter Craven was having trouble filling the page for “Diary”.  So he mentioned someone he had not met that week - namely the actor John Clarke - “a man who potters round the house with Proust or becomes fascinated by Cavafy or Keats”.  To justify this drop-in, Craven claimed that John Clarke “was among the people celebrating his birthday recently”.  Well, it all depends on the adumbration of Mr Clarke’s interiorities - so to speak.  According to Who’s Who in Australia, John Clarke’s birthday occurs on 29 July - which is quite some way from October.

Apart from the name dropping, a reader could not but be impressed with the amount of energy Peter Craven put into sucking up to the well-connected in just one week.  There was special praise for Shane Maloney who hosted an evening at Florentinos “that brought together literature and food”. Continued (an apparently hungry) Craven:

There was a magniloquent macaroni pie (a turnballo) and a chocolate castle (a torta di castella) that stunned the senses and the apprehension of history at one stroke (this last was an homage rather than a translation).

Great writing to be sure.  But what does it all mean? Also, it seems that Peter Craven believes that Spectator readers are interested in what he had for dinner.

Of all the souls met during Peter Craven’s name-dropping week, Nancy was most impressed with the fact that Craven caught up with his one-time boss Morry Schwartz at the Hains party. This is what Peter Craven wrote about the experience in The Spectator’s Diary:

The Hains party included…Anna and Morry Schwartz, the platonic ideal of a Melbourne power couple.  Anna was looking as much like a vision of Milan in the days of Visconti and Fellini as ever.  As for Morry, he’s like Bill Clinton: you have to go into charm detox to resist him.

Benjamin Disraeli once wrote that everyone likes flattery but “when you come to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel”. Who knows?  Perhaps Peter Craven considers the property developer/publisher Morry Schwartz and his missus to be somewhat royal.  Or perhaps he just wants his job back as editor of The Quarterly Essay (See Issue 31). In any event, it seems that Peter Craven’s attitude to matters Schwartz have changed somewhat since he bagged his one-time employer in The Times Literary Supplement on 14 May 2004.  In his TLS article, Peter Craven described Schwartz as “someone whose reach exceeds his grasp”.   Now it seems that, according to Peter Craven, Morry Schwartz’s grasp exceeds his reach.  Pass the trowel and praise the property developer.

MARK SCOTT ON THE ABC’S THIN SKIN

Mark Scott’s R.N. Smith Memorial Lecture on 14 October was a significant event in the contemporary history of the ABC.  Mr Scott spoke in his capacity as the ABC’s managing director and addressed matters pertaining to the public broadcaster - including its relationship with Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation.

MWD asked the ABC on 15 October, and again yesterday, whether Mr Scott’s R.N. Smith Lecture was cleared in advance by ABC chairman Maurice Newman.  The ABC’s official spokesman has advised MWD that she is not privy to this information.  Which suggests that the ABC’s commitment to the Right to Know Coalition is somewhat less than what might appear at face value.

The good news is that the ABC has responded to MWD’s request for information about the internal review, which was initiated last year, concerning the ABC’s complaints procedure.  MWD has long been of the view that the existing complaints procedure at the ABC is a highly bureaucratic process designed to bring about a situation whereby ABC personnel are protected from legitimate criticism and allowed to refuse to make on-air corrections and clarifications.

Last month the ABC Editorial Policies unit, headed by Paul Chadwick, released a report titled Review of the ABC’s Self-Regulation Framework.  It contained a preface by Maurice Newman and a foreword by Mark Scott.  Mr Newman played a key role in the report.  Unfortunately it is marred by Paul Chadwick’s bureaucratic word usage and process-laden prose.

A clearer idea of what ABC management has in mind can be obtained by reading Mark Scott’s letter of 2 October 2009 titled “New Self-Regulation Framework” which was forwarded to ABC staff.  It is set out below in full - the only changes which have been made involve the compressing of some paragraphs:

Today I am flagging significant changes to the ABC’s framework for monitoring our performance standards and dealing with audience complaints.

The reforms are designed to deliver a more interactive, robust system of self-regulation that recognises and responds to the challenges of the 21^st Century. They will streamline many of the complicated processes and rules that in the past may have pushed staff and other stakeholders into adversarial positions, and then allowed issues to drag on interminably, to the detriment of all those involved. The reforms will promote accountability and continuous improvements in quality, especially accuracy - touchstones of a modern ABC.

At a time of enormous challenge for the media sector, with commercial business models under pressure and the risk that traditional journalism values like balance, perspective and context become marginalised, it is more important than ever that the ABC get its self-regulation framework right. Self-regulation in the digital media era is an issue for media outlets around the world. In an era of information overload, trust becomes the critical factor in retaining and building audiences. I believe the changes we will be phasing in over time will put the ABC at the forefront of self-regulation, ensuring that fair treatment is delivered to complainants and to content makers in a timely and efficient manner.

The changes signal a shift in thinking.  The aim is to build a new understanding between content makers and complaint handlers and create new opportunities to resolve matters quickly.  As we gradually extend autonomy to program makers and local managers, greater responsibility will accompany it.  We all need to develop thicker skins, put up with sharper criticism from audiences, admit and correct errors quickly when they occur, and enhance our systems of feedback and review. We can all learn from mistakes.

The key principles of reform and the specific measures to be introduced over time include:

• Greater use of the ABC’s online sites to encourage interaction between staff and audiences about ABC content;
• New criteria to ensure investigations, remedies and penalties are proportionate to the issue at hand;
• A renewed ABC-wide commitment to Editorial Policies training;
• Streamlining the existing three-tiered complaints-handling system into a much simpler model. The roles of the Complaints Review Executive and Independent Complaints Review Panel will be phased out over time;
• Director of Editorial Policies to assume responsibility for Audience and Consumer Affairs;
• Gradually empowering content divisions to deal directly with complaints, acknowledging that the swift posting of corrections and clarifications can prevent issues building into much bigger problems;
• A new discretionary power for A&CA to refer a complaint to a program team or local manager to give those closest to the content the initial opportunity to settle issues directly and quickly;
• An Executive Editorial Complaints Advisor role to be created. At the request of Directors of content divisions, the EECA will give a second opinion on A&CA draft findings; and
• A new internal bulletin about Ed Pols developments, including case notes, hypotheticals and FAQs.

Increasingly, technology is allowing people to publish their comments, corrections and criticism (as well as their praise and suggestions) in our many online forums. The more people are assisted to do that, the greater the likelihood that fewer matters will need to be handled as formal complaints. Our formal processes should be reserved for more serious matters.

The current system of complaint handling will remain for the time being while these changes are phased in during a transitional period of preparation and consultation. Audience members will continue to have the option of external independent review of their complaint by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). I encourage everyone at the ABC to read the ABC Self-Regulation Framework Review report…

The findings are the culmination of an extensive review undertaken at my request by the Chairman and the Director Editorial Policies. The team considered submissions from the public and the ABC’s Divisions, consulted staff around Australia and received advice from Directors and industry self-regulation experts. Other reforms will be considered as part of the current review of Editorial Policies. Together, the two processes will help position the ABC in a rapidly-evolving media landscape.

Regards

Mark Scott

What’s important about Mark Scott’s letter turns on his acknowledgement that ABC staff “need to develop thicker skins, put up with sharper criticism from audiences, admit and correct errors quickly when they occur, and enhance our systems of feedback and review”.  Mr Scott has also urged ABC staff to acknowledge that “we can all learn from mistakes”. It is impossible to imagine such a letter being written by former ABC managing director Russell Balding or endorsed by former chairman Donald McDonald (who was much loved and much rewarded by John Howard).

The truth is that no one runs the ABC. Not the chairman or the board.  And not even the managing director.  Rather, the ABC is run by a number of staff cliques who prevail over certain programs. In the past Mark Scott has made promises of ABC reform which have not been implemented - note, for example, his address to The Sydney Institute on 16 October 2006.  In this address Mr Scott said that “there needs to be a plurality of opinion” in the ABC and called on the Media Watch program to “ensure there is more opportunity for debate and discussion around contentious issues”. Neither wish was translated into real change.

It will be difficult for Mark Scott to prevail over the ABC’s staff initiated culture of denial which has been reinforced by the ABC’s Consumer and Audience Affairs department.  As the ABC’s Annual Report reveals, Audience & Consumer Affairs rejected outright 96 per cent of complaints received in 2006-2007.  In 2007-2008 there was a small reduction in the number of complaints rejected in full - but only after a “new structure” was adopted by Audience & Consumer Affairs to classify complaints. This reflects the existing ABC mindset to neither admit errors nor correct errors quickly when they occur.

The task of Maurice Newman and Mark Scott is to change the ABC mindset.  This will not be easy.  Mark Scott, after three years as managing director, has still not been able to find one conservative to present a significant program on ABC television or radio or even to appear as a commentator on any major ABC program - on a daily or even a weekly basis.

The ABC remains dominated by a fashionable leftist, or left-of-centre, ethos and many of its personnel believe that ideological error has no rights.  Witness Virginia Trioli’s reaction to what she clearly regarded as Senator Joyce’s heresy last Monday. Still, at least Mark Scott and Maurice Newman recognise that the public broadcaster’s current complaints procedures need to be reformed as part of a mindset change among ABC staff.  Good luck.

FROM THE GRASSY KNOLL

Extracts from Harry M. Miller’s Confessions of a Not-So-Secret Agent (Hachette, 2009) were published in last Sunday’s Sun Herald.  They dealt with Mr Miller’s time as a ladies man and were of the kiss-and-tell (too much) genre.  MWD was most impressed by how the author was able to raise the possibility of a conspiracy against him - over his 1982 conviction for fraud - before dismissing the theory. Wrote Miller:

One of the many theories as to why I ended up in prison longer than I deserved was that the then NSW premier, Neville Wran, used his powers in an act of revenge for my alleged affair with his wife, the one-time publicist turned literary agent Jill Hickson. I have no doubt members of Wran’s Labor government had it in for me, mainly because of my close ties to the monarchy and for attending barbecues on the conservative side but Neville Wran wasn’t that sort of guy. His only failing was allowing some of the grubbier elements of his party to take positions in his ministry.

Harry M. Miller went on to say that he never had an affair with Jill Hickson and that Neville Wran “wasn’t the type who’d corruptly twist the law to send me inside”  So what is it all about, then?  The fact is that Harry Miller went to prison because a jury convicted him of fraud and a judge sentenced him to serve a prison term.  Neither Miller’s conviction nor his sentencing had anything to do with the New South Wales Labor Cabinet or the fact that he attended conservative inclined barbecues. The sentence may have been too harsh but that is another matter.

HISTORY CORNER

Josh Gordon is The Sunday Age’s federal politics reporter.  As the voice of the Sunday edition of “The Guardian on the Yarra”, Mr Gordon’s fashionable views on national politics invariably favour what the Americans would term a small “l” liberal or left of centre-line.  So it came as no surprise last Sunday where Josh Gordon ran the line that Robert Menzies, the Liberal Party’s founder, was really a small “l” liberal himself.  Wrote Gordon:

Talk to Liberals, and you get a range of conflicting opinions about the best way forward. There are those who say the party should move to the right to be ”truer to basic conservative values”. There are those who argue it should return to the small-l spirit of former prime ministers Alfred Deakin and Robert Menzies, with an emphasis on freedom, individual rights and enterprise. There are those who argue the Coalition should model itself on the highly successful Rudd Government, and there are those who say it should go in the opposite direction to offer an alternative.

Over the last decade it became part of the left’s rhetoric that the conservative John Howard had betrayed the Menzies’ small “l” liberal legacy.  It’s just that MWD is old enough to remember the left-wing slogan “Menzies Means War” which was grafittied on to many a Melbourne wall in the 1950s.

Josh Gordon’s assertion that Robert Menzies was a small “l” liberal type is ahistorical.  Whether you agree with Menzies’ policies or not, the facts demonstrate that the Menzies Government:

▪ Committed Australia to the Korean War

▪ Attempted to ban the Communist Party of Australia

▪ Introduced tough minded amendments to the Crimes Act in the early 1960 - which upset the civil liberties lobby of the day

▪ Committed Australia to the Vietnam War

▪ Introduced conscription for overseas service

In short, contrary to Josh Gordon’s re-interpretation of history, Robert Menzies was no sandal-wearing, freedom advocating small “l” liberal.

STOP PRESS

On last night’s Q&A Tony Jones called the final question, seemingly in the knowledge that the questioner would ask the panel - John Elliott, Louise Adler, Peter Dutton, Annabel Crabb and Craig Emerson - whether they would drink alcohol before appearing on a program like Q&A.  All replied in the negative - except Mr Elliott who declined to answer the question.  What was this all about?  And will it prove to be a precedent?  Stay tuned.

It so happened that John Elliott was in an argumentative mood last night. At the start of the program, Mr Elliott queried why his introduction did not include a reference to his time as chief executive officer CUB.  Tony Jones replied: “We’re not going to mention that; it’s an advertisement.”

How strange.  At the end of Q&A, the ABC ran an advertisement flogging a book recently issued by ABC Books.  And all week ABC Metropolitan Radio 702 has been flogging tickets to the 2009 Andrew Olle Lecture with Julian Morrow - one of the Chaser Boys (average age 36) - as guest speaker.  Advertising, it seems, is in the eye of the beholder. Running advertisements on the ABC is okay if you are selling ABC books or promoting ABC sponsored dinners held in memory of your departed ABC mates.  Otherwise advertising is a complete no-no.

That’s all for now.