Pearls and Irritations

The first time I went into the BBC’s Broadcasting House in London (it was 50 years ago), I was struck by the inscription on the foyer wall that encapsulates the corporation’s royal charter. It stated the BBC’s role was to “inform, educate and entertain”.

A decade later those goals were incorporated in the charter of the newly corporatised ABC and remain so today.

There’s a logical nexus between “educate” and “inform” but “education” doesn’t just rest with informing (and thus educating) the audience. If the “information disseminators” (journalists) themselves aren’t “well educated” in communicating efficiently and effectively, the value and trust in the information itself may be diminished.

The ABC has, therefore, always been expected to hold the highest possible journalistic standards. Besides, setting top-quality standards is an important means of differentiating the ABC from the commercial networks.

Yet, numbers of us (including most recently the new chair, Kim Williams) worry ABC standards overall are slipping. Some worry it is a consequence of the ABC’s controversial move over recent years to “popularism” in order to gain larger (and mainly younger) audiences. This is a complex matter requiring a separate conversation, including fully restoring the funding cuts imposed during the decade of Coalition Government.

ABC journalism standards, though, warrant immediate priority because they affect the growing problem of maintaining high levels of trust in the ABC, particularly in news and current affairs.

My focus is on one everyday but critical aspect of today’s ABC journalism, one with which I’ve been closely involved during and since my ABC days. My main role in 20 years with the ABC was in TV current affairs – as a foundation reporter and later an executive producer with This Day Tonight and its successor. This Day Tonight gained its reputation by nightly “taking on” politicians, seeking answers to questions the earlier, more timid ABC was reluctant to ask live on air but which form a core element of journalism practice, that is, holding our leaders to account.

From the start of This Day Tonight and on through several decades, my close colleagues Mike Willesee, Richard Carleton, and Kerry O’Brien, showed outstanding skills in conducting penetrating, live political interviews that informed (and educated) audiences.

Today, however, politicians arrive in the studio highly trained in what questions to expect and particularly in how to avoid providing anything more than their “message of the day” – and usually do so with great ease.

The question is, why the likes of today’s ABC “top-guns” are less notable at holding politicians to account than their predecessors?

I would have expected them to have a keen awareness of how well today’s teams of media advisers prepare their charges; how questions on politics are likely to be answered and how to respond with well-researched, authoritative follow-ups. It is essential that questions are structured so as to make it politely obvious when the truth is being dodged while, simultaneously, the questioner is perceived to be neutral in their personal views.

But, instead of keeping up with today’s needs, our interviewers, have actually gone into reverse and deliver 90% of their questions in the long-discredited “leading question” format. But they’ve gone even further (and seemingly with the encouragement of ABC senior management – which I’ll come back to).

Today’s ubiquitous leading questions are almost invariably flagged with intros like, “Do you think that?” or “Do you agree you made the wrong decision?” Just listen, you’ll regularly hear similarly pointed phraseology. No wonder also that public perceptions of ABC “bias” are at an all-time high. Not surprising, given leading questions are akin to putting words in the guest’s mouth and sometimes hopefully, but always fruitlessly, that the response will include an admission of error. It doesn’t mean, however, ABC journalists are invariably “politically biased” as certain media like to constantly assert. In my experience they are not.

But they are today less thoughtful with their interviewing techniques than they might be. Furthermore, many questions today are not only leading, but they’re also “double-barrelled” — two questions in one — thus giving the guest a choice of which is the easier to answer. Or a question is asked and the interviewer tacks on a possible answer (“Is it because?”). When did it become an interviewer’s job to answer their own questions?

I also wonder: do interviewers and their producers today ever sit down and analyse how the interview went – well or badly and why?

I do not have space to detail ABC management’s added and equally questionable acceptance of lowering presentation standards, i.e., poor grammar, careless pronunciation and diction, personal appearance and voice quality (both aids to authoritative delivery), as well as often poorly designed graphics material and other visual and audio aids.

Back though to the wider role of management. Professional mentoring and supervision starts on the studio floor with line producers and editors, but it is equally essential at every level, right up to the top, if the ABC is to be the standards leader rather than the follower.

In fact, there’s another closely related issue that must be addressed, and immediately, by the ABC board. The current combined positions of managing director and editor-in-chief must be separated before the appointment of a new managing director (retiring MD David Anderson and his predecessor Mark Scott were the only two who have held both roles simultaneously).

Both may be able administrators, but neither had any real experience in journalism or top journalism management which has been reflected in the general drop in ABC journalism quality. Both jobs require disparate qualifications – as well as each being full-time in their own right.

Critically, the editor-in-chief must be a person with extensive journalism experience and absolutely top-level journalism management skills (as happens in most big media organisations). Further, the ABC job requires someone with a deep understanding of, and dedication to, the principles and quality standards of our unique Australian public journalism. It would be highly desirable were the appointee Australian, but this might limit the field somewhat (I am not sure there are many home-grown products with the necessary depth of experience to take on this vital role).

Whoever it is, they must be a proven leader who can inspire by example and ensure implementation of the highest journalism standards all the way down the line. Today’s ABC requires nothing less.

Republished from The Canberra Times, September 14, 2024.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT