The South China Sea is complicated. The ABC made it simple – and not in a good way. When public media reduces regional disputes to black-and-white, it risks turning policy into performance.

The ABC used to be where Australians went for straight talk when the world got messy. Not the loudest take, not the most dramatic – just the facts, some context and enough respect for their audience to let people make up their own minds.

Which makes their recent South China Sea coverage “Intelligence reveals scale of China's base-building in the South China Sea” so disappointing.

Look, the entire South China Sea topic is serious business. It raises real questions about regional stability, trade routes, and Australia’s strategic future. These aren’t small issues, and they deserve serious coverage.

But this ABC story reads less like journalism and more like a briefing note from someone with an agenda. And when our public broadcaster starts sounding like that, everyone loses.

Getting the basics wrong

Let’s start with something that should be straightforward: history.

The article claims China’s nine-dash line was “created by China’s Communist Party in 1953”.

That’s just wrong.

In reality, the nine-dash line began its cartographic life in 1947 – under the Republic of China, not the People’s Republic.

That was during the post-war scramble to reclaim territories abandoned by Japan, when several states were helpfully redrawing maps in their own favour.

The PRC only came along in 1949 and inherited the line, along with the rest of the ROC’s bureaucratic baggage.

And here’s the twist the ABC left out: Taiwan — yes, that Taiwan — still upholds the nine-dash line claim today.

This isn’t some obscure historical footnote. It’s the foundation of understanding how we got here.

Calling it a modern communist invention makes about as much sense as blaming Labor for policies they inherited from the Liberals.

For a public broadcaster, getting basic facts wrong isn’t just sloppy – it’s a credibility killer.

The missing half of the story

Here’s what really gets me: an entire article about China’s strategic intentions that doesn’t include a single Chinese voice. Not one quote from an official, not even a line from state media, nothing.

You don’t have to agree with Beijing’s position to acknowledge what it is. You don’t have to find their arguments convincing to let readers know they exist. But apparently, the ABC decided Australians couldn’t handle hearing arguments from multiple sides of a complex regional dispute.

So instead, we get China portrayed as building military bases for no apparent reason – like they woke up one morning and thought, “You know what sounds fun? Dredging some reefs.”

There’s no context about how China frames these moves, no reference to their longstanding claims, no mention of their stated concerns about trade route security. Just satellite photos and Western think-tank analysis painting a picture of inexplicable aggression.

That’s not journalism.

That’s just one side of an argument presented as objective fact.

The language of hysteria

The ABC story claims that China is “trying to turn the area into a Chinese lake”.

Look, if building military installations on a handful of disputed islands qualifies as lake-making, then the sprawling network of allied bases from Guam to Darwin has already turned two whole oceans into our swimming pools.

The article also claims “nuclear-capable bombers are now within range of Australia” – as though we’ve skipped straight to the final scene of Dr Strangelove, minus the cowboy hat and with more kangaroos.

But hang on. Australia sits under the American nuclear umbrella. We host rotating deployments of strategic bombers at our own bases. Our sheriff has been deploying nuclear-capable aircraft across the Asia-Pacific for decades. B-52s have landed in the Korean Peninsula and in Japan – both much closer to Beijing than the South China Sea is to Canberra.

So, ABC, how about we just chill out – in the worst-case scenario, in an age of MAD (mutually assured destruction), at least we get a few more minutes than they do.

Does that make you feel better?

Who’s actually talking here?

Most of the article’s analysis comes from Washington-based think tanks — particularly the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies — treated as neutral arbiters of regional security.

Now, Gregory Poling does solid work, and CSIS produces valuable research. But presenting their perspective as gospel while ignoring other voices creates a pretty lopsided picture.

Where are the ASEAN academics who might offer different regional insights? Where are the maritime law experts with broader international experience?

It’s like covering Australian politics by only quoting Liberal Party sources, then wondering why the story feels incomplete.

Imagine if the ABC had actually asked Beijing why they think these installations are necessary, even just to scrutinise the response. Or talked to academics from Singapore, Indonesia, or Thailand – countries that actually live with these tensions every day.

None of this requires accepting Chinese talking points or downplaying legitimate concerns. But it would give Australians the complete picture they need to understand what’s happening in our region.

The ABC has shown it can deliver nuanced reporting on other messy international issues.

So why not this one?

Why this actually matters

Public broadcasters don’t just report the news – they shape how a nation understands the world.

And when the ABC presents one-sided narratives about regional disputes that directly impact our trade, diplomacy, and security, it doesn’t just inform poorly – it constrains the national conversation at the exact moment we need it most open.

To many, China’s actions in the South China Sea raise serious questions, and they deserve rigorous scrutiny. But scrutiny requires full context, not selective framing built to confirm a familiar story.

This isn’t an abstract argument about balance for balance’s sake. Australia must navigate relationships with every major power in our region – and that demands we understand how each side sees the chessboard, especially when their perspectives clash with our own.

Because reality doesn’t care whether our preferred narrative makes sense.

And if we’re serious about strategy, we can’t afford strategic storytelling.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.