This piece is part of a Crikey Deep Dive series: “What is the ABC For?”. We’re trying to unravel and distill some of the crucial questions the ABC should be asking itself in this post-Guthrie/Milne era.
It is something of an article of faith on the right of politics that the greatest problem with the ABC is its bias against the right of politics generally, and the conservative wing of the right in particular. Yet there is a risk that this unrelenting focus on the issue of minimisation of conservative ideas has allowed a potentially larger issue to escape debate.
There has been enormous change in the media environment in recent years. The ABC has both influenced the nature of this change, and been changed by it. In particular, the decentralisation, divisiveness and digitisation of news, politics and current affairs have changed the nature and importance of public broadcasting.
Whether there is equality of representation of various ideas on the ABC is in a sense a static question in this dynamically changing environment.
Of course the ABC has developed its own culture: it prefers focusing on social issues to economic ones, and when it does consider economic issues, it is broadly sceptical of markets and credulous of government intervention. Yet these attitudes are common across many publicly-funded institutions and bodies.
Indeed, while many people believe government institutions are motivated by high-minded principles compared to the supposedly profit-obsessed private sector, the economic theory of public choice cites numerous examples of public servants and government bodies acting just as self-interestedly as the private sector.
In many ways, what presents as ABC bias is simply the broad scepticism of private institutions and private means that is inherent in so many publicly-funded institutions and bodies. Specifically, it is the belief that government action ensures an independence the market cannot provide.
While it would be better if the public sector was more centrist or pluralist in its views, this market scepticism seems to be the reality. The extent to which this constitutes bias can be debated. However, it should be conceded that at least the ABC is aware of the need to present as unbiased.
No such restriction or understanding seem to apply to the ABC’s impact and influence on the viability of private media organisations — especially the extent to which the ABC might overwhelm the plurality that would otherwise be generated by the market. And it is this overwhelming influence that large public institutions have on markets that is important.
If we were to start from scratch, what would we task a public broadcaster with doing? The job description of the ABC was first written when there was no internet or television, and commercial broadcasters were very limited, both in number and scope.
So what should the role of a public broadcaster be in the 21st century? Should the ABC still be tasked with the requirement to “provide … comprehensive broadcasting services” as currently expressed under its charter.
This has been interpreted as providing a multitude of services broadcasts and options on radio, on television and online — effectively a license to compete with commercial services, notwithstanding any obligations around competitive neutrality.
Indeed, there is little doubt that the ABCs aggressive expansion into online content contributed to commercial alternatives leaving the market; especially Politifact Australia which competed with ABC’s Fact Check, and The Punch opinion site that competed with ABC’s The Drum online opinion section (itself now gone). No question the presence of the ABC had an influence on the merger of Nine and Fairfax.
The media market is challenged all over the world, but arguably the challenges in Australia are exacerbated by the sheer size and breadth of the public broadcaster.
It is hard to imagine government being ignorant of the impact on the market that would arise from the establishment of a broad remit, public broadcaster today.
The ABC does play valuable roles that should be enshrined in its charter. Comprehensive coverage and analysis of news and current affairs — especially issues affecting rural and regional Australia — is crucial and arguably non-commercial.
However, there is a risk that the increasing focus on digital services, and its corresponding demand on resources, could come at the cost of regional broadcasting, which has to service low audience numbers at high costs.
Another area where the ABC could play a role is supporting homegrown comedy. This would allow local content requirements to be removed from private broadcasters, and while it not end Australian content on these platforms, it would make clear the cost of supporting programs that are not commercially viable.
The alternative is clear: unrestrained growth at the ABC creates market pressures that risk the continuing diminution of commercial broadcasting. Plus, a media market monopolised by a government broadcaster makes perceptions of bias, or indeed actual bias, that much worse.
Rather than letting it dominate the media, it may be better to limit the ABC to the core roles it is best placed to provide.
Simon Cowan is research director at the Centre for Independent Studies, whose executive director hosts a show on ABC Radio National.
Inoculate yourself against the spin
Get Crikey for just $1 a week and support our journalists’ important work of uncovering the hypocrisies that infest our corridors of power.
If you haven’t joined us yet, subscribe today to get your first 12 weeks for $12 and get the journalism you need to navigate the spin.
Peter Fray
Editor-in-chief of Crikey
Leave a comment
What a load of rubbish. Where to start ? The global crisis for commercial media is the rise of the tech giants hovering up their revenue. The indirect ad based funding model was always potentially shaky and that day of reckoning has come big time. Instead of rising to the challenge commercial msm and lapdogs like the CIS instead aim for stupid easy targets like public broadcasters – which even if successful won’t help. I and millions more would rather chew off an arm than give a cent to the likes of Murdoch.
If politifact and punch is your best examples of crowding out even you must be embarrassed at how pissweak that looks.
Instead you just wish to restrain ABC to commercially unviable new comedy, expensive news and current affairs you can continue to bitch about and regional coverage which the commercials have fought tooth and nail to abandon.
Go back and wallow in front of some breakfast prime time tv and leave the ABC to those of us with thoughts beyond sport, celebrity and Pauline Hanson’s new dress.
I agree. Not so much a deep dive, this series is more a shallow belly flop. I thought Jason Murphy’s article last Wednesday was absolute tosh but this is even more so.
Crikey.com – stop it now!
I also agree. I’m not sure what this “deep dive” series is supposed to be trying to do, but I’ve read all of them so far, and none of them have contained any real analysis or even clear thought. A couple have stood out as being particularly shallow and poorly-written, and today’s is one of them.
I think Simon was trying to be reasonable. I guess he knew noone would read a second paragraph if he wrote what he really thinks in the first.
” … bias against the right …”; the thing the “right” assiduously overlooks is that there just aren’t that many of them. They just whine very loudly. If you wanted to, for argument’s sake, broadcast a “balanced” debate on climate change amongst the scientists, you’d have one denying scientist and ninety-nine accepting ones. But the denier would still try to shout them down.
social v. economic issues; well, some one should talk about them, don’t you think?
How is it that there’s no question about the ABC’s influence on the Nine-Fairfax merger? I doubt this proposition strongly, and challenge Simon to provide evidence.
ABC has a comedy channel, on which, as far as I can tell, it shows pretty much every bit of Australian comedy ever made for TV, including it’s many own creations. And the comment about commercial TV being released of that obligation is just a wedge. Commercial TV doesn’t recognise the need for ANY obligations placed upon it. On this issue, Simon is spruiking for commercial TV on an ideological point.
And I must say, how can the ABC achieve unrestrained growth while that idiot Fifield is busy defunding it at the PMs’, all of the latest three, behest. Long bow to draw, that one.
Finally, I can only suppose that Simon’s last paragraph is code for something like … say … reduce the ABC to a rural radio station to broadcast the weather and fire and flood warnings.
I agree with Lee Tinson. Simon Cowan says a lot but ends up saying nothing. What is his point exactly? Is it that the ABC is biased or preceived to be biased, or is it that it is a threat to commercial networks? If its the latter, the commercials need to lift their game instead of blaming the ABC for taking their market share, which I think is a big part of the attack, or if is the former they need to be on The Drum, 7:30 Q&A and Insiders more often to defend their point of view. Too many Liberals are IPA members like Communication Minister Mitch Fyfield but dont always declare this then attack the ABC for bias. The ABC us also attacked by the right for using tax payers funds. We fund schools and hospitals too. The point is?
Finally, the penny drops for me. I understand the rwnj’s so much better now.
Start with a set of highly dubious assumptions and present them as axioms. Display no curiosity as to why you carry around these built-in biases, just accepting as fact what the teachers at private school taught you. Never grow up, question yourself, think outside the stilted cultural norms you were brought up with. Just carry on with culture wars and complain about the terrible competition that private companies have to face, ignoring that the commercial channels vacated the field of serious news and current affairs decades ago.
Complain about their views being mostly cultural rather than economic, while also complaining about their scepticism of the market, and not notice the irony.
So, they’re supposed to be cheerleaders for the markets, who knew.
Incredible layers of in built-in ignorance and bias within one article. Who knew the CIS had such depth.
This is the voice of capitalism? These are the best arguments which can be mustered? “…the ABC is sceptical of markets and credulous of government intervention.” Unspoken in this lukewarm trickle of stale custard is the canard that markets are some kind of natural feature like mountains or lakes.
In breaking news we can report that human society is contained within a natural environment and markets are social constructs contained within human societies. There is always a preeminent social interest to which markets are always subordinate. The ABC is an expression of that preeminent social interest. If that expression constrains the activities of market participants, well so does occupational health and safety law, or consumer protection law.
The “old media” in this country are and were rent-seekers – exploiting monopolies and shamelessly using all kinds of political thuggery to protect and extend their privilege; ever at the expense of our commonwealth. The ABC – even under acute financial pressure from a hostile government; hamstrung, run by grace and favour dolts, and endlessly timorous in its news and current affairs reporting, remains an alternative to the media serfdom that would be imposed on us were it not there.
I find it passing ironic to read a commentary piece on a publicly funded organisation written by an individual who works for a secretly funded one. We all know who pays for the ABC. Who pays for the CIS?
A fine example to anyone who is building a home. If you start, as did the piece, with poorly formed foundations and then simply pile more structure on them you will end up with a shambles.