tip off

Planet Janet’s greatest hits: the woman who’ll help pick the next ABC head

Janet Albrechtsen hasn’t been quiet about her views on what’s wrong with the ABC. Here are some of her most strident views on the national broadcaster — and if you want a seat on the board, you’d better pay attention.

The useful thing about high-profile columnists getting appointed to government positions is they leave a trove of material that can be gleaned for insights into what they’ll be like in the role. And the ABC has been one of Australian columnist Janet Albrechtsen’s favourite topics for over a decade. So if you’re wondering what kind of people she’ll be nominating to the ABC board, here are the columns you must read — Planet Janet’s greatest hits.

1. The time she said Mark Scott should resign. Albrechtsen was one of the fiercer critics of the ABC’s decision to publish, in conjunction with The Guardian, stories based on whistleblower Edward Snowden’s leaks. These revealed Australia had spied on Indonesian dignitaries and led to several icy months between the Australian and Indonesian governments. Albrechtsen wrote:

When Scott applied for, and was given, the job as MD, he was touted as an effective editor-in-chief, something the national broadcaster had lacked under earlier managing directors. There are now serious questions about Scott’s prudence as an editor-in-chief — whether or not it was his decision to publish. If the decision were his, he got it badly wrong. By deciding to team up with the left-leaning Guardian Australia, the ABC effectively aided and abetted an online newspaper with minimal reach so the spying allegations would receive maximum reach using the resources of the taxpayer-funded giant.”

The next managing director (Scott’s term expires in 2016) can expect to answer questions on whether national interest trumps transparency and freedom of the press, if they want Albrechtsen’s vote.

2. The time she said the appointment of a staff-elected director to the ABC board was a remnant of the “Soviet-style workers’ collective”. In 2004, when Albrechtsen’s column was still fairly new, she wrote one of her most enduring sentences. She thought it inappropriate that then staff-elected ABC board member Ramona Koval was sending staff emails about what was said at board meetings. In fact, she wrote, the whole position was:

… a remnant of the Soviet-style workers’ collective. And recently re-elected unopposed as staff director, Koval is obviously keeping the collective happy through her regular reports from the boardroom.”

It’s “their ABC”, presumably meaning the staff’s, not “our” ABC, Albrechtsen proclaimed, referring to the taxpayer — and she wanted the role gone. The position was abolished by Howard in 2006, but reinstated by Rudd in 2009, despite Coalition objections. The position stands — for the present.

3. The time she said the ABC should stop being so damn smug. Workers’ democracy isn’t the only thing Albrechtsen hates — she’s no fan of the “smugness” within the national broadcaster. In February wrote that the ABC should stop ignoring or mocking its critics:

Sadly, the ABC has a long and undistinguished history of playing a disingenuous game of ignoring and ridiculing every effort to make the broadcaster a more balanced and less predictable organisation. When criticised by Labor and Liberal politicians, the ABC says that must mean the broadcaster is fair and balanced, sitting somewhere in the political centre. In fact, it means that the ABC too often skews to the left of Labor. The ABC’s bigger problem is that journalists are rarely held to account for errors they make. I saw this problem first hand as a director and it continues apace.”

It’s a common theme for Albrechtsen. In 2010, she quipped that “the ABC does not stand for ‘Aunty Beyond Criticism’”.

4. The time she slammed Insiders’ invitation to be the token conservative. When Albrechtsen first started writing for the Oz, she was invited onto the ABC’s Sunday morning political commentary program Insiders — but turned it down. It took 10 years for her to get another invitation. But she took no pleasure in being a minority conservative voice on a broadcaster that, she claims, stacks panels with left-wingers:

Alas, the invitation from Insiders, while genuinely appreciated as an olive branch, misses the point. The issue is not whether Janet Albrechtsen or Niki Savva sits in the chair reserved for the show’s sole conservative. The point is that our taxpayer-funded broadcaster thinks it appropriate, week in and week out, for the program to have a three-to-one ratio in favour of progressives. It’s the same over at Q&A on Monday nights, where conservatives routinely are outnumbered three-to-two by those who lean left. Or four-to-two if you count host Tony Jones. I have suggested to the producers they surprise their audience so that, just occasionally, the panel leans the other way. Why not shake it up, fellas? After all, it may better reflect views outside Ultimo and Southbank.”

5. The time she said the ABC should be more like Sky. When Rudd was rolled in 2010, Sky News’ breaking coverage ran circles around the ABC’s scheduled programming (as Media Watch pointed out). Albrechtsen reckons it said much about the ABC:

To be fair, not every network did what Sky News did. But why couldn’t the ABC? The answer is all about culture. Wednesday evening was a study in contrasts between a network that gets the importance of delivering news as it happens and a complacent national broadcaster that doesn’t get it. Worse, in the days that followed, a self-congratulatory national broadcaster tried to pretend it had not let down those Australians, like me, who look first to it for the best coverage of news and current affairs.”

Sky News, meanwhile, was an agile commercial operator who operated on a  shoe-string budget — showing how news should be done.

6. The time she said ABC directors have a legal duty to ensure the ABC is impartial. At the heart of Albrechtsen’s criticisms is a belief that ABC directors should be more interventionist to make sure the broadcaster doesn’t fall into the lefty-inner-city group-think she believes its journalists are partial to.

In 2010, then-chair Maurice Newman said the ABC was in the grip of “group think” about climate change. The comments were roundly renounced by Aunty’s journalists. Albrechtsen responded:

Those who quickly denounced Newman for editorial interference, people such as Holmes, Greens senator Christine Milne and the erroneously named Friends of the ABC, have presumably not read section 8 of the ABC Act, which imposes a personal legal duty on directors to ‘ensure that the gathering and presentation by the corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial’.”

So, with that, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that plenty of groups and individuals (Crikey included) are raising a stink about Albrechtsen’s appointment. The government has appointed two conservatives (former deputy Liberal Party leader Neil Brown will sit alongside Albrechtsen) to a four-person panel which gives the Communications Minister a three-person shortlist whenever a vacancy arises on the ABC board (the board, in turn, picks the managing director). The remaining two panel members are due to leave next year. Yesterday’s appointments raise a disturbing precedent for those who believe the ABC’s journalists should be left to do their jobs free from ideological interference. In Albrechtsen’s view, that assumption is the entire problem with the ABC.

24
  • 1
    Brad Sprigg
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    I have suggested to the producers they surprise their audience so that, just occasionally, the panel leans the other way.”

    What is the point of that? Janet and her “right” ilk just all dittohead the same opinions anyway. On the “left” (meaning the left of Janet) you at least get some semblance of difference of ideas between commentators.

  • 2
    Graeski
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

    From climate change reviews led by confessed climate change denialists; to stacking the judicial system; to militarising border protection: it’s the standard strategy adopted by all fascist governments to retain power by stifling dissent. Albrechtsen’s appointment is entirely consistent with this strategy. Its sole purpose is to silence the ABC.

    And if this strategy doesn’t work then hey - they simply hire a team of thugs to drag you down a dark alley and kick the crap out of you. Watch out, all you Lefties!

  • 3
    Flickknifetipsy
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    What I find most troubling is that Albrechtsen, like Brooks, is and always will be a creature of Rupert.

  • 4
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Her “personal critiques” of Gillard should set a standard for future reference too?

  • 5
    zut alors
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    This is bad news indeed. However, there’ve been politicised jerks on the ABC Board previously but the organisation has survived them all.

  • 6
    Electric Lardyland
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Yes, I’m sure that the ABC staff will enjoy being lectured about impartiality, by a third rate News Ltd opinionista, whose main stock in trade, is to reheat for local consumption, the delusional bilge of rabid American neo-cons.
    And as far as the Abbott government goes, every day and in every way, they become just that little bit more like the disastrous administration of Bush the younger.

  • 7
    Alex
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    With respect to the issue of the lack of conservative panelists on Q&A, I believe Tony Abbott has refused a number of invitations after his last inglorious appearance.

  • 8
    zut alors
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

    Alex, therefore Abbott shows rare sound judgement.

  • 9
    Alex
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Also, given Albrechtsen works for The Australian, does this not constitute a conflict of interest?

  • 10
    SusieQ
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    Thankfully her columns are now behind the Rupert-paywall, so hardly anyone reads them.
    How about an article on the views of Neil Brown too? He seems to be no fan of the ABC.

  • 11
    bushby jane
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Yes, conflict of interest definitely…

  • 12
    mikeb
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Oddly enough every time the board has been stacked with “conservatives” the criticism remains. It’s as if the usual critics believe in a type of “Stockholm syndrome” whereby the white knights of the right are made impotent rather than leading the fight to pull down the so-called socialist barricades. Worse still they might even start being considered as leaning left. My theory is rather than any conspiracy the incumbant conservatives actually get to see how the ABC operates and find it’s nowhere near as bad as they thought. Planet Janet would not agree with that theory of course, and only her opinion would count as being valid in her mind.

  • 13
    Steve777
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 5:31 pm | Permalink

    There will have to be a mass purge of Abbott Government appointments when Labor returns.

  • 14
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    Lack of conservative panellists on Q&A”? Go back over the record count them. It’s like all those Lefties running the ABC - ‘til you get down to counting them and the politics they go to practice when they leave - “50:50”?
    Then what is a “conservative”?
    Do they mean “Not enough conservative panellists on Q&A” - because the “Left (opinion)” is getting too much exposure ie “any”?
    While they’re left to dominate the rest of our conservative-run viewsmedia, predigesting our news for us.
    Do conservatives want it all?
    “The ABC should be run as Limited News!” Murdoch’s “Ministry of Misinformation and Obfuscation”, waging it’s War on Democracy - keeping the electorate in the dark in their “public interest (as long as it suits Murdoch)”. Handling their Right to know? Managing/editing the electorate’s perception of reality? Like “How many Lefties run the ABC!”?
    That’s good for their sort of democracy?

  • 15
    klewso
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    The Infallibility of Born-to-Rule Class Think - The Only Opinions Worthy of Countenance …….
    We might not be able to control the way they think, but we can control their view of current affairs, the way they get to see the world (through our reporting) - what their minds are fed, on which to form opinions, and vote.”

    (Nothing confuses, the masses, like a diversity of opinion and views?)

  • 16
    JohnB
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    Klewso, that is probably your longest contribution for 3 or 4 years.

    It is certainly longer than your customary 3 to 5 lines.

    Feeling OK?

  • 17
    Lubo Gregor
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 7:40 pm | Permalink

    This was the first time I read anything from Albrechtsen. Not sure what she knows about soviet collectives but someone better lets her know that her articles sound like from Komsomolskaya Pravda!

    But it really does not matter whether left or right, if the objective is to muddle the waters.

  • 18
    Sharkie
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

    You forgot Albrechtsen’s response to Media Watch when they exposed her plagiarising a French writers work and adding the word “Muslim” before “rapist” and “white” before women.
    See http://www.crikey.com.au/2002/09/15/2500-words-later-janet-still-misses-marrs-point/
    Anyone with any self respect would have quit the journalism profession after that, but Albrechtsen played the victim and attacked her critics. And now she determines who goes on the ABC and SBS board selection committee.
    Conservative columnist would outlive cockroaches in the event of a nuclear strike.

  • 19
    AR
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    I will remain calm and trust to the demonstrated abilities of the Rabids to snatch defeat from the jaws of fairness.

  • 20
    Patriot
    Posted Thursday, 3 July 2014 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

    It’s a fact that the ABC is stacked with extreme Greens:

    https://theconversation.com/whose-views-skew-the-news-media-chiefs-ready-to-vote-out-labor-while-reporters-lean-left-13995

  • 21
    John Taylor
    Posted Friday, 4 July 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Calling Janet Albrectson a journalist is like calling a lilo a yacht.

  • 22
    klewso
    Posted Friday, 4 July 2014 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    She is one, just like Blot on the Political Landscape - it’s what Murdoch’s done to the profession.

  • 23
    tonyfunnywalker
    Posted Friday, 4 July 2014 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    I note that Turnbull is arms length here - an appointment made from the PM’s bunker on Capital Hill.
    Reminicent of the fall of the Third Reich where despiration takes over from level headed thinking as the failure to reach the stated objectives of the IPA and Murdch are not implemented or totally botched by a inept government that is in retreat as popular support collapses (it never really has had any since the election).
    LNP MP’s in marginal seats are getting nervous and small “L” Liberals are seeking new loyalties with Palmer (the defacto PM) and the Greens.
    I still venture a Double Dissolution in November or at least a leadership spill as the bid to save seats becomes more critical as 2016 approaches.

  • 24
    The Pav
    Posted Monday, 7 July 2014 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    For this person to be appointed to the ABC would smack of corruption.

    Murdoch wants the ABC eliminated as a competitor for commercial reasons, Particularly if he can hamstring overseas broadcasts as honest reporting would embarass the Chinese govt. Murdoch wants to expand his satellite/cable services into China.

    If he takes over the Australian over seas news service he can reduce / eliminate criticism of the Chinese authorities.

    This is why he supported Abbott. Now ABbott is paying hgis dues. Planet Janet has proven to be totally biased and to be completely lacking in balance and has carried the cidgels for her master in a most faithful way.

    He who pays the piper……

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...