The debate about balance on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, specifically on the current affairs panel show Q&A, is not really a debate at all but rather like ships passing in the night and exchanging well rehearsed broadsides. To the extent that it is a debate it is not only tired but also full of inflammatory contributions from a range of people and organisations, including the Prime Minister.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The tired nature of the criticisms of lack of balance on the ABC shows up in the way terms like left and right, conservative and progressive are used. There is little recognition that there are very many other types of political position.
There is also a predictable reduction of differences of perspective and opinion down to just left and right. This unnecessary dichotomy is encouraged by the way our party politics is often reduced to the same old mindless competition between just two sides. The presence of the Greens and the Liberal Democratic Party in any discussion should break down this dichotomy but they are reduced to being fringe dwellers and don't usually alter the way discussions are framed.
Many Australians actually make up what I would call the moderate centre. They don't see the world as a battle between good and evil but as a much more complex situation which is often very difficult to understand, much less reduce to simple categories. These centrists are forgotten in these overheated discussions about particular ABC programs.
My view is that across the whole Australian media there is a reasonable balance and hence a reasonable choice for readers, viewers and listeners. That to me is more important than the position of the ABC, which makes up only a small portion of the media sector. It seems to me unexceptional that the ABC is largely a centre-left institution, like most other arts and cultural institutions. Working in the public sector, including public broadcasting, naturally attracts more people of a centre-left disposition. The reverse is equally true for the commercial sector, which naturally attracts more people of a centre-right disposition.
But both public and commercial media should still conduct themselves in a balanced manner and by and large they do. All consumers also have the right to exercise their freedom of choice by just not reading newspapers whose style they don't like and not listening to programs or presenters they don't like. I do that. As a commentator I also have the right to exercise the same choice and to pick and choose between media outlets. No one forces me to appear on any show if I don't wish. I find broad swaths of the public and commercial sectors quite congenial and I avoid those that are not to my taste.
I recognise that such an approach does not satisfy some critics of the ABC because they believe that a public broadcaster should be subjected to a special scrutiny not applied to the commercial sector. In my view they mistakenly invest too much energy in debating the merits of a small part of the whole sector while neglecting the alternative characteristics of the rest.
Q&A is not one of my favourite programs, so I rarely watch it. But my reasons are different to those being aired now. I don't like the false hyper-competition which relentlessly pits one side of politics against the other. Furthermore party discipline and misguided party loyalty mean that most major-party politicians end up being so constrained and predictable these days. This unnecessary predictability spoils otherwise engaging and nuanced discussions.
More and more I despair of inter-party debates and would much rather have discussions free of politicians and their surrogates. It is not as if politicians are the most interesting and thoughtful people in our community anyway.
I also don't like the sound-bite nature of the discussion in which the five panellists and the studio audience are forced to rush from one topic and point of view to another topic and point of view without pausing for breath. It is as if the host is scared that the viewing audience will become bored if any topic takes more than three minutes.
Programs like Q&A are set up for grandstanding, especially, but not just, by politicians. The most successful panellists are not just the most outspoken ones but the ones that are self-absorbed and live for publicity.
The producers of the program also delight in so-called "gotcha" moments because they think that is what viewers want. It is this propensity to chase ratings rather than any inherent lack of balance which led to the decision to invite the extremist Zaky Mallah on to the program. But if the ABC was wrong to give him a platform (a greatly overused word) then the controversy stirred up by the program's critics has multiplied his supposed platform a hundredfold.
Just as consumers and commentators can exercise their choice not to be associated with any media network, station or program so can politicians. The Coalition and their associates are therefore free to boycott Q&A as they have begun to do. But they should realise that boycotts cut both ways. They hurt those who boycott as well as the intended victims.
The absence of any Coalition politicians will hurt Q&A as it is now structured because the program relies too much on playing out traditional party conflict. It will hurt the Coalition too because it takes away a favourite avenue to reach a particular audience. Nevertheless if the Coalition is serious about its boycott then it has to stick with it. If it is just play-acting then it is a pointless exercise.
John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
