Pearls and Irritations

Conservative Australian politicians have a debilitating pre-occupation with the ‘objectivity’ of the ABC. Needless to say, what they really cannot stand is when the simple truth about their policy stances produces its own criticism. Far from being pro-left however the ABC is overly cautious not to offend the right. Such caution is particularly evident at times of war.

In 1991, the outcry over the ABC’s reporting of the first Gulf War was such that the Backchat program ran a special edition to help clear the air. The options were that the ABC was reporting objectively or that it was being too critical of the role of Australia and its allies. I wrote in suggesting that the television coverage was pro-war.

My argument was that by running a report every night describing the strategies being employed and the latest technological developments in weaponry, ABC television created a sanitised impression of a desert war that seemed bloodless and normal – little more than a video game. Predictably enough, the program did not mention that it had received any correspondence from this critical viewpoint.
I was reminded of this anaesthetized production value when watching an ABC interview recently with the Nationals MHR Mark Coulton and Labour’s Maria Vamvakinou. The parliamentarians were rational, balanced, compassionate and humane.

The interviewer took pains to assure the interviewees that she needed to ask or had to ask certain questions. While she might have been criticised on the grounds that these preambles were a waste of words – interviewers should just ask their questions – she could not be accused of any bias. She was careful and not even the most extreme right wing observers would be justified in criticising her.
Unfortunately, the producers – or whoever is responsible for such extras – placed a banner across the screen describing the interviewees as ‘Pro-Palestinian MPs’. It is true that both MPs belong to the Friends of Palestine group of parliamentarians. However, their stances on the conflict arose not from a predisposition to favour one side but from the fact that they had visited the region. They were offering insights which colleagues would not necessarily have and were careful to assure the interviewer that they respected other views.

By labelling the parliamentarians ‘Pro-Palestinian’ the broadcaster might have simply been indulging its natural inclination to stereotype. The results however go further. The description of the pair as pro-Palestinian suggests that neutrality is not possible. Further it begins the task of undermining their case. It places them by implication into the anti-Israel camp and exposes them to the criticism of those who want to ignore their arguments.

Perhaps this was just the increasingly bizarre world of television which offers children’s cartoons with canned laughter, plenty of violence, bushfire scenes with no identifying dates and muzak behind everything. It has always amazed me that Four Corners for example has won so many awards given that it employs a ‘drone’ and slow motion to tell the viewer when to be appalled. The program’s success is certainly no recommendation for its competitors. So it might not surprise to find that someone’s national anthem might be added to interviews as background, just to let viewers know where a network stands. That would certainly undermine the search for objectivity.

It would be naive to hope that ABC viewers can or will bother to distinguish between ‘Pro-Palestinian’ and ‘pro-Hamas’. Certainly many will not want to bother. Personally I would prefer it if media abandoned the quest for spurious objectivity and showed a clear anti-war preference. How mad is it when to urge a ceasefire is to be seen to be favouring one side in a conflict? How Newspeak? Understanding media reporting of this conflict requires considerable energy and determination. Let us hope Australians develop these skills in the near future.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT