Never mind ABC TV, put a rocket up ABC Radio
|
Today we have the interesting sight of recent ABC board member Janet Albrechtsen joining in the round of kicking of the national broadcaster for its disappointing performance last Wednesday night when news of the Gillard leadership challenge was breaking. This is a return to form for Albrechtsen. She was a regular critic of the national broadcaster before joining the board in 2005, as one of the Howard government’s several idiosyncratic appointments. She left the board at the end of her term in February this year and has obviously ended her self-imposed embargo on ABC criticism. Instead, she is today barracking for pay television channel Sky News. Albrechtsen’s column in The Australian today compares the ABC’s performance unfavourably with Sky, stating that the commercial rival “showed how it should be done” in breaking to live news. “The rawness of it was riveting” she says, of the political pundits examination of entrails on the night — the comparing of text message from anonymous sources and so on and so forth. The Australian editorial echoes Albrechtsen (or she echoes it), claiming that the national broadcaster, having broken the news, was then caught napping. Several things can be said about all this. The ABC’s performance on the night left a lot to be desired. Media Watch did a forensic analysis on Monday night focusing on the worst aspects. I have been told today that an internal review is under way at the ABC to examine its performance on the night across all platforms. But the particular focus of the review, rightly I think, is not television but radio, where the failure to use the dedicated news channel effectively and the somnambulant performance by some local radio stations across Australia was particularly disappointing. Yet the focus of The Australian’s criticism is television, and the comparison is made between ABC1 — a general news channel — and Sky News, which is a dedicated news service. A moment’s thought should tell us that this is an unfair comparison. While journos might be frustrated at the failure of ABC1 to switch to entrail reading and text message comparisons (and let’s face it, there was very little real news until late in the evening), the bulk of the audience don’t agree. I am told Sky News attracted an audience of 100,000 that night, whereas the ABC’s line-up of Spicks and Specks, Gruen Transfer and United States of Tara peaked at 1.5 million. Not everyone is a current affairs junky. So why does The Australian focus on the unfair Sky News/ABC1 television comparison? What goes undeclared is News Limited’s stake in Sky News through its one-third owner, British Sky Broadcasting, where James Murdoch chairs the board. News also owns 25% of Foxtel. British Sky is an increasingly important part of the empire’s plans, with Murdoch seeking total control. As The Australian’s media commentator Mark Day said recently. “If I were a betting man, I’d say that some time down the track Murdoch will move to increase his stake in Foxtel. In the meantime, if the BSkyB deal goes through … expect to see News Limited, Murdoch’s Australian arm, move to buy BSkyB’s stake in Sky News Australia … News can see the obvious benefits of putting its journalists into multiplatform roles. It has studios in each of its capital city editorial hubs and local ownership of the channel would better enable it to compete with the ABC’s new 24-hour news channel.” Exactly. And so we have today’s Australian editorial, which concludes in self-serving fashion:
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they. Tensions around when to break into the television schedule of the ABC with breaking news are not new, and the issues involved are not easy. Half a decade ago there were famous fallings over this issue between the then directors of news and the director television, Sandra Levy, who fiercely protected her schedule from the demands of the journos. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of what the ABC did and failed to do last Wednesday night. There are legitimate issues to do with resourcing the new 24-hour news service, and the news breaking culture of ABC newsrooms. But let’s be clear that we are also seeing yet another example of what I have previously described as one of the main media battles of this decade — between public broadcasters and those who want to persuade us to pay for content, with News Limited in the front ranks of the battle. So how did the ABC perform on television? It broke the news at 7pm, followed up on the 7.30 Report, and tried again on Lateline with Tony Jones’ awkward interview with Peter Garrett, who really wanted to talk about saving the whales and knew nothing about saving Rudd, but was nevertheless the only cabinet minister available. A decision had been made to cut to news the minute there was any firm announcement. That was done when Rudd fronted the media, but was spoiled in some areas by the failure of the new Media Hub to deliver a glitch-free performance — something that has also been, I am told, the subject of “intense engagement” internally in the past few days. If the Media Hub had worked properly, and perhaps if there had been a news kicker on the foot of the screen at times during the evening, I think ABC 1 would have achieved a defensible balance between the various interests and desires of its mass audience. But radio, surely, should have done better. It is probably unfair to attack Philip Adams, as Media Watch did. While he was broadcasting live, it is also the case that his program is repeated several times through the week and has a big podcast audience. Adams defends himself elsewhere in Crikey today, without mentioning that issue, but it would surely have limited his ability to make ‘live’ references. On the other hand, local radio’s performance was patchy, and ABC news radio barely varied its normal unflappable ‘cover the field’ tone. Someone should have put a rocket up the bum. And what does it say about the new 24-hour news service? Not much, if anything. |
|
|
|
14 Comments
No media outlet covered itself in glory on the day of the Gillard coup, at least online. Nowhere near a TV that morning, I searched all the online sources of news I could find, and no one had a clip of the Rudd and Gillard speeches. There were hastily compiled, repetitive pieces at online newspaper sites, and a few snippets of clips on TV news and radio sites (including the ABC), but no one had the full speeches, until a few hours later, they were found on Youtube. So much for the 21st century!
I was privy to ABC1’s bungles last Wednesday evening but tuned in, as usual, to ABC2 breakfast the following day. Barrie Cassidy had been roped in for some commentary and the tension was building up to the Caucus vote.
At 9am ABC2 switched to the kiddie programmes and ABC1 took up all Canberra coverage. It was indescribably dull and involved three ABC political journos appearing awkward and rugged-up outside a Parliament House entry whilst repeating and eking out the scenario to date. Their mission was to somehow fill time until the voting result.
Meantime, over at the Nine Network there was action aplenty: a studio panel with Richo and George Negus, live crosses to the Gillard parental home in Adelaide, crosses to Laurie Oakes at Parliament House and also to Karl Stefanovic on the lawns of Parliament House.
After flicking back and forth to see if the ABC coverage had gained any life, I settled with the Nine Network. As I normally watch the ABC 80% of the time this was truly ironic.
Here we go again, the news junkies insisting that their form of entertainment be imposed upon the rest of us. There’s nothing about the Gillard v Rudd vote that couldn’t have waited for the scheduled bulletin. It’s not like Gillard was rounding up agitators on Canberra’s streets in preparation for a putsch on the Lodge.
Beyond the first minute the live coverage didn’t have any news whatsoever and degenerated to opinions. Very much like the 24x7 “news” channels in the USA. As it was, it took the media several days before we actually got any coherent description of the events of that evening. So the “live” coverage beyond the readily apparent facts wasn’t only pointless, it was misleading.
“Media Watch” was particularly nasty to Peter Goers, an Adelaide institution who has considerable appeal because he comes from a different tradition than the journalist types who usually dominate radio. When there is real news of immediate interest to listeners — such as during the bushfire season — Peter does sterling work.
“one of the main media battles of this decade — between public broadcasters and those who want to persuade us to pay for content”
I wasn’t aware that the ABC and all it (many) employees worked for free. It’s far from perfect, but at least Foxtel gives me some degree of choice in what I pay for. The ABC takes my tax dollars and gives me two and a half channels of kiddy programs (and soon a 24 hour news channel) whether or not I want them.
And don’t get me started on the ABC’s addiction to UK comedy shows and crime shows!
This from the sponsors of “The Grech That Stole Our Thunder”, among so many other impartial hits?
As for “Fux News”!
The Aus has been given its orders to attack the ABC and is responding as Murdoch’s good little doggie always does.
If Holmes hadn’t dedicated the entire Media Watch program to the topic of the ABC’s performance on the night in question, then I venture this story may have gotten a column inch, if that elsewhere.
Just goes to show the impact that Media Watch continues to have on journalists.
Oh dear, here we go again ….
… when will all the new junkies realise that the ABC is a BROADCAST organisation NOT a NEWS organisation with a charter that requires it to “inform and entertain”.
On the other hand, Sky News, as its name suggests, is there to provide news and ONLY news. I suspect the majority of Australian viewers would have preferred to be entertained with the occasional update to be informed of the shenanigans in Canberra because, let’s face it, it was just the Labor party chucking out a sitting leader - nothing unusual in that.
News Corp’s dominance within Australia’s print media is so great that granting Sky a licence to run a 24 x 7 TV news channel, at a time when it’s the only 24 x 7 news service, was an absolute disgrace.
It could only happen in a country that’s allowed one paricular corporate interest to make an utter travesty of the notion of media diversity. The consequence is the subversion of our democracy. Who cares about public opinion any longer? If Mr Murdoch and his associates want a war, that’s what they get. If they want another 20 ‘anti-Terrorism’ laws, that’s what’s rolled out.
Regarding the election coverage, I found myself glued to the box after 7pm until it was over. I thought Sky and the ABC both did a reasonable job. Not much more to be done, really, absent hidden cameras in the PM’s office.
No surprises they couldn’t wake up Phil Adams, or he dropped the microphone or whatever. Adams is Auntie’s alternative to counting sheep. His job is to make sheep.
Albrechtsen’s opinions are not worth discussing except to say thank GOD she’s off the ABC Board.
I’m surprised by all those theorists who leap to defend the ABC against the Murdoch conspiracy. How do they even know what the ABC broadcasts - don’t the tinfoil hats block out the signals?
In Dr Johnson day the last resort of scoundrels was patriotism.
Today, the first resort of scoundrels is to snigger about ‘conspiracy’.
Market dominance is market dominance. When I go into a local village newsagent, the only choice of daily newspapers available are News Corp, from the local rag to the Australian and everything in between.
Anyone who thinks that’s a good idea must work for News Corp. Even some of them must surely have doubts?
I live in a rural area and use satellite TV (Austar). It doesn’t carry the main commercial channels 7, 9 and 10. That leaves many Murdoch offerings (plus ABC and SBS).
ABC current affairs increasingly appears to be a place where News Corp and Lowy Foundation folk chat on air in their spare time.
I could give many examples of ‘in-our-faces’ bias. Over the last couple of months, I’ve seen Israeli Goverment spokespeople on ABC TV maybe 20 times - far more often than Palestinian spokespeople. Even worse, while Iran is mentioned almost every day in a negative way, I can’t remember when I last saw a representative of the Iranian Government interviewed on Australian TV. This is a serious problems at a time when warmongers are threatening to attack Iran with potentially catstrophic consequences. Lack of media balance is hazardous to peace and our way of life!
Sure, News Corp isn’t the only problem. Even so, genuine media diversity requires that bloated, war-promoting, foreign-controlled empire to be broken up into smaller, digestible bits and sold off to separate buyers. A break-up of News Corp’s Australian operations should be at the centre of debate over Australian media policy.
Mainstream politicians ain’t gonna lead on that issue, so it’s down to the rest of us.
I couldn’t agree more Syd. The case you make regarding News Ltd is, in my view, around 30 years too late in being prosecuted in this nation and yet to be honest, has never been more needed than now. The entire political scene in Australia revolves around editorial spin and unrestrained gossip often so close to the nature of “cash for comment” by commercial journalism (hard as it is to call that). An educated and demonstrable view of this issue might very well be argued that commercial media in Australia be described as self righteous, self serving (note the abundant quantity of cross promotion within organisations like or similar to News Ltd) and dishonest. Institutions entrusted to inform citizens and communities subvert our thinking by the use of lies, misrepresentations or most commonly,expressing half truths within a false,opinionated context effectively creating a lie when technically in law it could not be proven as such. This type of deceit is applied to citizens who are required to exercise voting obligations often on the basis of such deceit. The consistency of media organisations in applying political tactics like these would appear to be mirrored across the “free” world. Curiously, the agendas pushed by such players would appear to have the effect of maximising the quantity of human energy (money mostly) concentrated at their disposal, further increasing the capacity to extend control of the national or community conversation. Circular and self sustaining, with truth, ethics or justice rarely presenting an impediment to this conduct. An individual could reasonably feel that this amounts to the farming of people and be seen to resemble a form of industrial agriculture. After all, what is money other than a tradable symbol of human energy?
I have asked myself the following question; What could motivate a person to strive to accumulate more money than could ever possibly be enjoyed, needed or used to take care of loved ones and those around in need. Dare I say, could it be the sole intention of people like Rupe to exercise power over other humans? And then what could possibly motivate such a desire as this? Fear perhaps? I see a lot of fear promotion and fear justification being pushed in the “free media” selling itself as free speech and sound editorial opinion in our media landscape as well as each western country I have ever visited. But give them enough rope as their ways are becoming increasingly transparent.
On Wednesday night, last wee having eagerly awaited the return of “United States Of Tara” for months, you can imagine my dismay when the season premiere was rudely interrupted by that conflated (or should that be inflated) soap opera from Canberra. Honestly, given the behavior of the ‘actors’ up there these past few years, I could give a toss at all about them? No. Suffice to say I wanted to throw a brick at the TV…
Thank you to Mark Scot for calling a review. It hihglights his commitment to continuously improving the ABC. Let’s hope the ABC review extends to ABC Radio Australia and Australia Network.
Their news is often outdated in comparison to BBC and CNN when events move very quickly - e.g. any natural disasters such as the Haiti earthquake that has death toll counts, political situations that change quickly e.g. the night the Australian leadership ballot was announced.
Unfortunately I’ve never heard any breaking news on Radio Australia, even in relation to breaking international events e.g. coups in Thailand etc, and I’ve been listening for quite some time. Indeed Radio Australia news reported on australian travel agencies who were cancelling their trips whilst their rivals were reporting on which countries (e.g. UK, US, and Australia) had revised travel warnings. People living overseas would be more interested in the latter, whereas people in Australia probably the former point.
And please remember, it’s embarassing when outdated news progams are aired internationally (especially in relation to natural disasters or rapidly changing political events) as people can quickly switch between BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera and others and learn alot more.
And finally, let’s also take a close look at Radio Australia’s foreign language services to see what they are really reporting (or not reporting)!!! Most interesting to say the least.