Managing director backs ABC coverage
Mark Colvin reported this story on Monday, February 3, 2014 18:10:03
MARK COLVIN: The managing director of the ABC has given his first broadcast response to a sustained attack on the national broadcaster over its coverage of asylum seekers and the Royal Australian Navy.
The ABC's been slammed for a lack of patriotism, senior government frontbenchers have called for an apology to the navy, and a sustained press onslaught has claimed that the ABC's journalism is out of control.
I began by asking managing director Mark Scott if it had been wrong to say in reporting the story that new footage backed the asylum seekers' claims of ill-treatment at the hands of the navy.
MARK SCOTT: The Australian media had widely reported these allegations some weeks before. The ABC then went and did further investigation. There's great uncertainty as to what has happened on board that boat and what has given rise to these claims.
The ABC did further investigation, came into possession of that videotape, and then further reported that.
MARK COLVIN: But I'm asking about the handling of that. Was it correctly handled?
MARK SCOTT: Well people will come to judgements on that, Mark. And as many journalists as there are out there, and former editors there are out there you'll have different judgements.
I suppose what I'm saying to you is I think it was an important story to report, the right story to report, the result of investigations by the ABC and what's very important in this context is that it's clear that the ABC was not judge and jury on that matter. The ABC did not say that these allegations had been proved. The ABC said that they were important allegations and …
MARK COLVIN: Sure, but….
MARK SCOTT: … we went pursuing the truth.
MARK COLVIN: The ABC used the phrase that "the footage appears to back the allegations."
MARK SCOTT: Yeah.
MARK COLVIN: Should it have used that phrase?
MARK SCOTT: Well some people can second guess the semantics Mark. I think what I'm saying is that the allegations had been raised, had been reported everywhere. Then the videotape came to light. And that videotape, along with the claims of the asylum seekers again, sent that story forward. And what the ABC didn't do was say that this was conclusive evidence at all. We said it clearly demonstrates…
MARK COLVIN: But if we say that it "appears to back the allegations" aren't we putting some weight behind the asylum seekers, and to some degree pre-judging the issue.
MARK SCOTT: No, no, I don't think we did pre-judge it Mark. I think the allegations had been widely reported all across the Australian media. Then the videotape came to light, and clearly, that videotape coming to light led to further questions, further allegations, further questions about what had happened on those boats. And what the ABC has been doing is pursuing that story.
We've continued to pursue it. We've never said that we know the answer to it. We've said that they are serious allegations. What takes place under the Australian flag on the high seas is clearly a matter of public importance. And it clearly has been important for us to continue to investigate this story.
And part of the, my frustration I must say, is that there are some out there in other media outlets who seem to be suggesting by the fact that the ABC has raised these very important allegations and bought the evidence that some people have presented to us and put that in the public domain, we are somehow saying that's the end of the story. We've been saying it's the beginning of the story.
MARK COLVIN: But you know, from watching events at the BBC over the Iraq war - the weapons of mass destruction case, which led to the Hutton Report. You would know a phrase or a couple of phrases can come close to bringing down a massive organisation, like the BBC or the ABC. So that's why I'm asking you about the phrasing.
MARK SCOTT: And Mark, I'm saying that people will come to a judgement on that themselves. I'm saying that I believe it was an important story, and the way that that story has been depicted in other media outlets is not fair, and is not correct.
MARK COLVIN: Are you backing the editorial chain which resulted in it going to air in the form that it did?
MARK SCOTT: Well I'm saying Mark, that I think that it was an important story. I'm saying that I am convinced that that story on its merits needed to be broadcast. And I'm standing by that story.
MARK COLVIN: Arguing on behalf of the ABC getting the Australia Network, you talked about the ABC as an arm of Australia's soft diplomacy. By doing that, didn't you open the organisation up to exactly the kind of claims of lack of patriotism that it's been facing during the last couple of weeks?
MARK SCOTT: I think it's a very narrow definition of patriotism and of soft diplomacy if people think that's the case. We've always said that we'd operate under the ABC Charter and the ABC's editorial standards. The example that we show in the region is of being a fair, balanced, independent public broadcaster.
That's one of the things that the ABC and Australia Network demonstrates in the region. That's one of the reasons - that's one of the most powerful examples that we give. And so that's why we don't think there was a contradiction at all of the ABC playing that role, just as the BBC has played that role over many years. And if you look around the world, Mark, the organisations that deliver international broadcasting on behalf of governments are invariably public broadcasters.
MARK COLVIN: But I don't believe that the BBC describes itself as an organ of soft diplomacy.
MARK SCOTT: But that's - but the BBC is arguable the strongest organ of soft diplomacy that the UK has, because what they do is they demonstrate the values of the independent public broadcaster into a world where there's often not values of free and independent journalism.
So we don't see a contradiction in that way. We've run Australia Network now for more than a decade. We've run Radio Australia now for seven decades. And one of the things that we put on display is a robust democracy, a free press, and an independent public broadcaster.
MARK COLVIN: Well Paul Sheehan in the Sydney Morning Herald today and other sources have said that the ABC is almost certain to lose the contract for the Australia Network. The Australia Network may be abolished in the May budget. Is that your understanding?
MARK SCOTT: Well that hasn't been communicated to me Mark. In fact, we've signed a 10 year contract with the Government to deliver Australia Network and we've…
MARK COLVIN: If it happened, how much of a blow would it be?
MARK SCOTT: Well I think it would be a blow but the question we have to face is would it be a blow to Australia?
If you look at G20 countries, Mark, about 16 of them are significantly investing in international broadcasting. Sixteen of them - I think 15 of them actually, are spending more than Australia spends, significantly more. A lot of that focus is in the region.
And we've been reinventing this network in the last 18 months. We have a series of partners with media organisations in India and China and Indonesia, putting far more digital content up on air. We have new programs about business and education and tourism and agriculture. And these are all important displays of modern, contemporary Australia.
I must say I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about Australia Network. I think expats would want more news and more football. I think sometimes people travelling to the region want to see more from home. But really, some of our most popular programs are programs that help people learn English, help people see children's programming.
MARK COLVIN: Joe Hockey said today that he's rung you a couple of times to complain about what he sees as bias in ABC programs. How often does that happen?
MARK SCOTT: Well it happens from time to time Mark. And it happens from both sides of politics. In fact the politician I think who's been most outspoken to me in person around criticism of the ABC performance was Bob Brown, the former leader of the Greens.
The bottom line is if you look at our performance over the last 80 years, politicians from both sides have been critical of the ABC. Part of our job is to do stories that politicians themselves may not want to go to air.
MARK COLVIN: One of your predecessors told me at his leaving party that he'd had a call from a politician after I'd done an interview with that politician, a minister actually, calling for my sacking. How often does that happen?
MARK SCOTT: You don't get mentioned too often in dispatches Mark…
MARK COLVIN: No, not about me about…
MARK SCOTT: Well I think…
MARK COLVIN: … about particular people?
MARK SCOTT: Well I think some journalists, some programs, some stories from time to time get politicians upset. But this is part of …
MARK COLVIN: So you do get calls asking for you to punish, sanction, sack people?
MARK SCOTT: No, I wouldn't want to overstate that. I think it's more in terms of frustration from time to time. And look, Mark, if there's a problem with our broadcasts; if in fact we haven't held up to our editorial standards, if in fact we've had some breach of some failure, then we need to admit up to that. And if there are problems we need to address that.
But what I'd say is that by and large we have - some times of the day there are 65 live microphones broadcasting ABC content, tens of thousands of hours of content that goes out every year. We're not perfect, we've never said we are perfect, but our test is not are politicians happy with our content? Some of the stories they're most unhappy about are some of the most important stories we need to do.
MARK COLVIN: How do you respond to what Ray Hadley said to Tony Abbott on the radio, where he said that he and Alan Jones are subject to enormous scrutiny and the ABC can get away with what it likes unscrutinised?
MARK SCOTT: Well with the greatest respect to Ray: demonstrably untrue. The ABC has the biggest unit internally reviewing our editorial quality…
MARK COLVIN: Internally, that's what they always complain about though isn't it?
MARK SCOTT: Well internally Mark is the first step of it.
So an independent unit, independent from working with you or here in the news division or in television, reviewing audience complaints. And then, if audience members are unhappy with that, they can go to the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority), the same group that reviews Ray Hadley and Alan Jones. So it's very similar kind of process that exists. But we have far more rigour.
And I can tell you that an ABC journalist gets more advice around editorial standards, our editorial guidelines; has a far higher bar of expectation than exists anywhere else in the commercial media. And that's the way it should be. We should have higher standards because we are the public broadcaster.
MARK COLVIN: The ABC managing director, Mark Scott.
No comments:
Post a Comment