ABC guidelines - one more skirmish in the culture wars

In fact, these programs can be dealt with in a completely traditional framework, straight out of the existing guidelines. Is the fact set complete? True? Does it deal honestly with objections? If it doesn’t, it is a bad documentary, and shouldn’t be broadcast. It is not a question of whether its opinion should be balanced by a contrary view. There’s something odd going on, a kind of relativism. If a program has journalistic integrity, you can’t mount a contrary case, because it will fail the same test. Watch any episode of Four Corners.

In my euthanasia case, we ought to be able to show the film to fair minded conservatives, and have them agree that it represents a reasonable description of the arguments, and of the human consequences.

In this sort of situation, the problem is not primarily about the inherently opinion based nature of the film. It is actually about two other problems - the broadcaster needs to be prepared to spend enough money to make sure it passes my fair-minded conservative test, and programs should not be dumbed down and sexed up to make them entertaining. So I am not sure the opinion category gets to the heart of the question.

What is more, the idea that these programs are about debate is actually naive, or more probably disingenuous. In our euthanasia film, for example, the ultimate issues are not about a clash of ideas at all. We can pretend to be logical all we like, but the issue is really about power. There are enough people in our society agin euthanasia for religious reasons for governments to avoid the issue. We could each face a grisly death because these folk think that God wants it, and all their secular objections about processes and slippery slopes are just a smokescreen.

Talking about balance doesn’t work. Saying that depiction is “just my opinion” is nonsense, because the film is deployed to incorporate the layered information and experience to show that our description is convincing. You can’t make an equal documentary in the sector, because it would fail the journalistic honesty tests embedded in the existing editorial guidelines.

Mark Scott is also emphasising the notion of “impartiality”. Over time, an audience should not be able to perceive a bias or editorial line inside the ABC. Fair enough, though there are many values issues in which we strongly think the ABC should be partial to quality and not partial to degradation.

Reading slightly between the lines, “impartiality” here is not a judgelike position of distanced objectivity, in which the broadcaster is committed to a positive process of searching for the truth, but something a bit more namby pamby. He really means “diversity”, mixed up with the notion that the ABC should be “without fear or favour”. Hence:

The Editorial Policies now require the ABC to be impartial as a broadcaster and generator of content. As we assess the output of each of our platforms - for example, ABC TV, Radio National, local stations such as 702 ABC Sydney or 774 ABC Melbourne - there is now the expectation that there is platform impartiality. That there is a demonstrated plurality of opinion and perspective.

The big deal is plurality. What difference does this make to the independent sector? Scott is not entirely specific - he says something worrying but doesn’t crystallise his meaning:

This will have particular impact on our documentary production and acquisitions as well as content that is clearly designated opinion. We want passion and conviction. But passion and conviction that comes from the widest range of perspectives on the things that matter for all Australians.

“The widest range of perspectives”. I hope they fall back on the time-honoured panel technique, in which Gerard Henderson, as the only right wing pundit not on a government broadcaster board, can ramble on in his usual way while everyone else rolls their eyes. Watching him defend Fox broadcasting would be a delight in itself.

I presume the ABC, in seeking a range of “opinion” to purchase and license, is not going to find a bunch of whackos to tell us that Darwin was wrong, the earth is flat and our children are dying from vaccinations. If they do, a variety of interesting and powerful establishments will be after them with great joy.