It’s Our ABC
Despite my interest in politics and a one year stint in a political office, I never really got into the ABC’s Q & A however I really enjoy Insiders, which is the other big ‘political’ program on the ABC. The biggest difference between the two is the presenters. Barry Cassidy in my view asks the difficult questions in a respectful way. Tony Jones, on the other hand, well, I’m sure he thinks he’s very plithy.
Of course the other big problem with Q & A is the fairly obvious ‘seeding’ of the audience. These ‘random’ citizens delight in regularly lobbing the most delicious of hand grenades at the panellists. I’m sure we’d all agree it’s a great way to ensure a quality political discourse. Tony Jones has perfected his ‘I didn’t see that one coming’ face. That’s one thing he’s got down pat.
Q & A is almost like some type of political ‘Jerry Springer’ experience where the debate is often a fringe political issue where both sides of politics are trying to wedge each other. Then one of these questions, from someone who’s already been vetted by the ABC, gets lobbed in. Mayhem ensues. I can almost imagine the crowd chanting now. Tony – Tony –Tony – Tony.
All this is relevant because of the Q & A show which aired on 22 June 2015. This show immediately made headline news largely because of a question from audience member Zaky Mallah directed to Steve Ciobo, a senior member of the Government, who was on the Q & A Panel. The line of questioning from Mr Mallah is below (1).
"As the first man in Australia to be charged with terrorism under the harsh Liberal Howard government in 2003, I was subject to solitary confinement, a 22-hour lockdown, dressed in most times in an orange overall and treated like a convicted terrorist while under the presumption of innocence," Mr Mallah said. "I had done and said some stupid things, including threatening to kidnap and kill, but in 2005 I was acquitted of those terrorism charges. "What would have happened if my case had been decided by the minister himself and not the courts?"
Mr Ciabo responded with the remarks below.
"From memory, I thought you were acquitted on a technicality rather than it being on the basis of a substantial finding of fact," Mr Ciobo replied. "My understanding of your case was that you were acquitted because at that point in time the laws weren't retrospective. "But I'm happy to look you straight in the eye and say that I'd be pleased to be part of the Government that would say that you were out of the country. "I would sleep very soundly at night with that point of view."
Mr Mallah then responded with:
"The Liberals have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL because of ministers like him."
At which point Tony Jones, in a rare moment of insight, shut things down with: "I think that's a comment we are going to rule totally out of order. I'm sorry about that. I don't think there is much more to say at this point."
To top it all off Mr Mullah was not content with his efforts during Q & A. Mr Mullah later tweeted: "I would pay to see that Minister dumped on ISIS territory in Iraq". So it appears that despite his earlier arrest Mr Mullah is still happy to threaten another Australian citizen with kidnap over a difference of opinion.
The director of the ABC, Mr Finlayson, has since praised Tony Jones for ruling Mr Mallah’s comments as out of order (2). Whilst clearly Mr Jones acted appropriately by shutting down the debate, I just don’t see how he or the ABC can conceivably avoid significant criticism over this whole episode.
As I understand it, the ABC vets everyone who asks a question on Q & A. As Mr Jones hosts the program I find it difficult to believe that he was not involved in the vetting process. It strains incredulity to suggest that Mr Jones wasn’t aware of Mr Mallah’s personal history.
One can only guess at the process surrounding the selection of Mr Mallah. He has a history which shows links to terrorism. He’s also previously attracted criticism for some of his online commentary. The episode is about an issue that is obviously sensitive to Mr Mallah along with a whole range of other Australians. What could possibly go wrong?
If this type of incident had occurred on a commercial station it’s likely that a number of the people involved with this would be moved on. Folklore has it that the late Kerry Packer personally had at least one program shut down mid broadcast. No doubt there will be further calls for action to be taken against the national broadcaster.
In my view any direct action taken against the ABC would be an overreaction. Q & A after all is just one program. Consider Insiders. In 2013 Piers Ackerman repeated some of the ridiculous questions lobbed at Prime Minister Gillard about the sexuality of her partner Tim Matheson by Howard Satterly (3). Cassidy not only shut it down, but he made it quite clear that Ackerman’s remarks were unacceptable. One was left with the impression that if Ackerman dared to repeat it again then Mr Cassidy would have told him to leave.
Any action taken to reform Q & A on the other hand would be welcome in my view. When compared with the previous example of an issue on Insiders Tony Jones’s apology, whist appropriate suddenly seems like the weak response that it was. Not surprising given the clearly weak vetting process performed by a weak program whose weak guests often espouse weak ideas on issues that most Australians don’t care about.
I’m not sure where the ABC goes from here. There have recently been several instances where the ABC has shown questionable judgement regarding their sources, the conduct of their journalists and the overall presentation of the stories they report on. Sarah Ferguson was widely criticised for her interview of Joe Hockey (4). The ABC’s reporting of asylum seekers has also been questionable (5). I could go on.
We need to remember that one role of news organisations is to expose facts that have been hidden. When hidden facts are exposed some people and organisations will be embarrassed. That is the same whether it is big business, back yard con men or the Federal Government. We should also remember that the organisation doing the exposing will often be criticised by those which they have exposed. For this reason some accusations of bias are to be expected.
The ABC should disregard the criticisms levelled at them for bias and instead focus on their processes because that’s clearly where the problem is. Consider The Australian newspaper. It’s obviously biased towards the conservatives yet it isn’t criticised for bias. Why? Would the Australia let someone with a background like Mr Mallah air his views in the manner in which the ABC did? They are far too clever for that.
Furthermore you don’t have to hardball a minister to conduct an insightful interview. You don’t have to or ambush them with an unexpected guest whose personal experiences obviously at odds with government policy in order to expose weaknesses in policy. The right question invites the respondent dig their own hole and then all the journalist has to do is insert a meaningful break – to let the viewer connect the dots in their own mind. Once again Cassidy is a master of this. Mike Willesee famously stitched up Hewson over the GST with just one question (6).
In my time in the hospitality industry one of the maxims drummed into me was that a good waiter ensures his guest has everything they need without them ever remarking on you. Journalism is similar in that the really good journalists know that it’s all about the story, not about the journalist, or the program. If people are talking about the journalist or the program then the journalist has gotten it wrong. I, along with most Australians I think would like to see the ABC get it right.
(2) https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/28524774/abc-admits-error-in-q-a-terror-face-off/
(5) http://mumbrella.com.au/abc-reports-asylum-seekers-perceived-biased-213104
(6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_cake_interview