Herein I store essentially disparate reference material for my main blog socialistdystopia.blogspot.com CONTENTS OF THIS 'COGNATE' BLOG MAY BE REGULARLY INDEXED OR COMMENTED UPON IN THE 'DYSTOPIA" BLOG, MAKING IT EASIER TO READ.
This site could have value for casual readers: certainly context / purpose may or may not be obvious.
#################### Geoff Seidner
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday dismissed warnings by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that Israel could be targeted by a growing boycott campaign if peace talks with the Palestinians fail.
Netanyahu tried to reassure Israelis, saying any boycott attempts are immoral, unjust and "will not achieve their goal," while two government ministers accused Kerry of unfair pressure tactics and not standing by Israel.
Kerry's comments and the aggrieved Israeli response led the main TV news shows Sunday, signaling a growing concern here that the world will use economic pressure to extract concessions.
A Palestinian-led campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions, launched in 2005, was long considered by Israel as a minor nuisance. However, recent warnings by Europe and by Israel's own finance minister about potential damage from a widening boycott have raised the level of concern.
At the same time, a small but growing number of European businesses and pension funds cut ties with Israeli firms linked to settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, war-won lands the Palestinians want for a state. Over the weekend, Denmark's largest bank, Danske Bank, blacklisted Israel's Bank Hapoalim because of links to settlement activity.
Kerry is expected to present a framework for a peace deal in coming weeks. Anticipating resistance from Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, he has spelled out the risks if they say no to his plan.
Israel won't be able to preserve its future as a democratic, majority-Jewish state and will endanger its prosperity, while the Palestinians will inadvertently embolden hardliners, Kerry warned last month in an apparent attempt to appeal directly to public opinion on both sides.
On Saturday, at a security conference in Germany, he sent a tougher message to the Israelis.
"You see for Israel there's an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There are talk of boycotts and other kinds of things," Kerry said. "Today's status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It's not sustainable. It's illusionary."
Israeli public opinion toward a peace deal has changed in paradoxical ways over the years, with polls suggesting more Israelis now support the establishment of a Palestinian state, but are also increasingly suspicious of Palestinian intentions and skeptical that an agreement can be struck and implemented. With the economy robust and the security situation stable, the government hasn't faced widespread public pressure to compromise.
This could change, said analyst Nadav Eyal.
"Israel has performed an economic miracle in the past 30 years," Eyal wrote Sunday in the Maariv daily. "In a reality of globalization, however, this miracle is completely linked to the reciprocal relations between Israel and the Western world. But success, any success, has a permanent weakness: what's given can also be taken back."
"The hammer John Kerry is swinging may sound weak at first, but its pounding will only get louder," he added.
The fallout from Kerry's latest comments led the main TV news broadcasts Sunday evening. "Advice from a worried friend or a veiled threat?" asked the anchor on Channel Two.
For hard-liners in Netanyahu's center-right coalition, the answer was clear.
Once again if they, Israel, disagree with the opinion of others, they play the anti-semitic card. The continue to throw their weight around because they have the USA as a perceived backup............ I for one would love to see it stop. They are adept at showing their ability to push the envelope without any regard for the consequences. Their expansion is inflammatory and obnoxious....... and so is Netanyahu. How many more times will we have to see this impediment to peace anyway?
My friends in the State Dept. believe that the greatest threat to Homeland security is our association with Israel and the undue influence of Jewish special interest groups in Washington.
Who can name the only Middle Eastern country that has ordered it's military to attack and kill American military personnel? Hint... Google U.S.S. Liberty
We should drop Israel. It is nothing but a major thorn in our side and motivator for terrorism. I've never understood what we get in return for the billions and billions we've given them. They are not our ally. They do not provide any advantages to our position in the middle east. All they do is complicate and degrade our relations with Muslim countries. No I'm not anti sematic, I'm pro USA.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tells the world he does not give a day old bagel about ending the 69 years of non-stop war the world has had to endure thanks to the Nazis of the 21st century's arrogance. Boycott Israel! If that does not work? Some of those sanctions they are always screaming for against Iran would be a great way to teach them a lesson.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Sanctions against Iran harmed the "good" Iranians along with the bad, and were undoubtedly prematurely applied for that reason. Iran has every right to a national nuclear program, as peaceful generation of electricity will allow them to export more gasoline, replacing domestic gasoline consumption with nuclear-generated electric vehicles.
As businesses start to withdraw from Israel, our US Aid requirement to Israel (FREE MONEY) will need to increase from our current $5 Billion annual gift to $20 Billion to make up the difference.
Sanctions should be an absolute last resort, because they would collaterally damage Israeli political opponents of the Netanyahu government/anti-Palestinian statehood Likud/Orthodox/Nationalists, economically undermining some of the very centrist and moderate Israeli people who need our help the most. Israel does not need a bunch more U.S fighter aircraft. Israel needs to negotiate in good faith, something the current Netanyahu government has never appeared inclined to do. Sooner or later, cracks will form in their rightist coalition without our having to play the sanctions card.
Netanyahu is whistling past the graveyard when he dismisses the boycott threat. Israel is heavily reliant on exports for the foreign currency needed to sustain the occupation and its apartheid system of subjugation. Israel's No.1 export commodity is diamonds which account for 30% of manufacturing exports and are a major source of funding - about $1 billion annually - for the Israeli military which stands accused of war crimes by the UNHRC, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Calls by Palestinian civil society for people of conscience to reject Israel diamonds have been echoed by civil society organisations elsewhere, most noticeably in South Africa where leading voices, including the ANC Youth League, COASTU and NUM and others, have called for Israel to be excluded from the Kimberley Process and an end to the export of rough diamonds to Israel. Growing awareness of the fact that the diamond market is heavily contaminated with cut & polished blood diamonds which evade the human rights standards of the Kimberley Process is increasing awareness of the fact that diamonds from Israel are tarnished by the blood of innocent Palestinians. Diamonds that fund war crimes are blood diamonds.
These so called Palestinians have never even recognized Israel's right to exist. That, above all, should be the starting point for peace talks... which would then never happen, as the Palestinian's primary goal is the total destruction of Israel.
er, no...that's Iran. Iran wants to destroy Israel. Palestinians simply want to keep their land they own, and have access to food so they don't starve to death. Isreal infringes on both of those meager goals.
Not a place to get into such a discussion, but you need to research history. The "Palestinians" were offered a homeland at the same time as Israel. They wanted all the land so they turned it down and joined with several other Muslim countries in attacking Israel the day after their founding.
this miracle is completely linked to the reciprocal relations between Israel and the Western world.--------------------------------Subprime mortgage, Greece or Detroit?
I believe Netanyahu's statement "If Israel were to lay down her arms there would be no more Israel. If the Arabs would lay down their arms, there would be no more war". Arafat sabotaged every peace agreement while looting his own people to the tune of several hundred million dollars. Abbas is not much different. Israel is the only pluralistic democracy in the Middle East. While all the countries that surround her export dates and bombs, Israel exports water purification systems, new agricultural practices to Africa and Europe, new medical technology that saves lives. I could go on. Lastly - ultimately who backs the supporters of the Palestinians (besides fashionable left wing "activists")? Follow the money and you end up at North Korea, China, Russia, even Venezuela, etc - a laundry list of far left totalitarian Eastern countries in competition with the West. Clue: The Obama administration is the most far left and ideologically driven administration in U.S. history - most americans just simply do not trust Obama or his minions. When Israel's enemies grow up and join the modern world, and recognize Israel, let's talk. Until then it is just like talking to schoolyard bullies.
Yes- I am an Israeli and cannot disregard the boycott treats.
Kerry speaks on behalf of Obama. President Obama policy in ME helped Islamists and annihilated USA allays.
*Following Obama Turkey visit- Erdogan started bulling, transformingTurkey in an Isalmist antidemocratic state: Freedom index downgraded Turkey form place 99 place 2002 to 154 in 2013.
* Putin shows in Syria that Russia supports their allies in the most difficult days. Obama shows that under his administration USA allies cannot predict USA behavior almost on any event. Putting acts a lot and don’t talk much. Obama talks a lot and don’t act much.
*USA is not trusted by allies.
*Muslim brotherhood got legitimacy by Obama. USA court revealed Muslim brotherhood mission: "The work in America is a Jihad, eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within" Obama cut aid to the Egyptians opposing Muslim brotherhood Islamist dictatorship ideology. Obama forgot that Democracy without boundaries may result in power taking by totalitarian ideologies.(remember German Nazi party get power following democratic elections)
*Islamism is stronger in all the ME–Africa-Turkey-Afghanistan-Pakistan, Europe, China.
*Unlike Egypt when millions of Iranians took to the streets in June of 2009 demanded freedom from a cruel regime that threatens the world the president Obama was silent
However USA signed an agreement with Islamist Iran worse to the North Korea, buying time for the Islamist Iran to consolidated their NUK program and giving away the effective sanctions. Islamist Iran constitution: " This century will witness the establishment of a universal holy government and the downfall of all others""
* Obama helped Palestinians to avoid meaning full negotiations. Palestinian refuses to end the conflict by:
Recognize Israel as a Jewish state and declare end of conflict.
However Obama coordinated with EU treated Israel with sanctions. Obama and EU provide the Palestinian with funds used to teach and preach hate of Jews and destruction of Israel. Obama policy day 1 policy was to undermine Israel moral legitimacy. -Demanding Israel to give up security and heritage values -Initiated the idea of settlement freezing. The Oslo agreement between the Palestinians and Israel the settlements were included in the list of open issues for future negotiations.( refer to Wikipedia wiki oslo) The Palestinians never required settlements freeze before Obama.
Congratulation! You just joint the group of brain washed Islamist/ Iranians!! I collect Arabs,Iranian and supporters fake stories later to be publish -------- Partial list of imaginary crimes:
1;Israel funds Chechen terrorism 2: Jesus was a Palestinian who became a guide for millions worldwide 3:Israel organized to anti Islamist demonstrations in Turkey
4:Israel organized the car bombings in Lebanon 5:Ana Frank is a anti Israeli simbol 6: The Mosad organizes the bomb attacks in Iraq.
7;The gas attacks in Syria are Israel work 8; Chielf Israeli negotiator had sex with Palestinian negotiators 9:In Cairo-Al Qaida flags are carried by CIA/Mossad spies burning churches
12:Zionist ark Shia Iraqi insurgents- not Iran 10: Israel steals organs 11:Israel has attacked Norway
13:Israel is behind Lebanon Harry killing 14:Al-Qaida in Gaza works for the Mosad. 15: Israel organized the Arab spring.
17:Stalin,FDR,W.Churchill,Eisenhower,were Jews. 18: Syria is quite because it stands against Israel. 19:Mosad organized in Egypt Shark attacks
20:Mosad committed the 9/11 21:Israel secrete device cause the Indian Ocean tsunami 22:Israel supernatural rats chase Arabs
23:Jew fill children teeth with mercury amalgam to destroy their intellect. 24:All Jewish Nobel prizes( 23% out form total Nobel prizes) have been stolen from the Arabs. 25;Mosad organized the plot to kill Saudi ambassador, not Iran
26; Egypt army commander Sisi is an Israeli dog 27:Muslim brotherhhod demonstartions in Cairo are Israel work
28: Israel is the current world capital, a veritable "Rome to which all roads lead", in present-day international intellectual property theft, illicit use, and counterfeiting of proprietary process, product, and of organized, predatory copyright infringement.
Kerry is striking the appropriate balance, both in U.S. sponsored Israeli-Palestinian talks, but also with regard to the Iran 6-month probationary suspension of sanctions. Kerry seems to grasp that confidence-building is the name of the game at this juncture. Not that it matters, but I'd personally prefer an officially secular, as opposed to a nominally "Jewish" Israel, and a sharia-free, secular autonomous Palestinian nation as well. Both sides must understand that the sort of recalcitrance and foot-dragging so characteristic of Palestinian and Israeli abrogation of past accords is simply no longer an option. Follow-through must be the watchword. No point in dredging up dumb crap Kerry may or may not have done a quarter-century ago -- we need a comprehensive solution to this Israeli-Palestinian question "right now". It is awfully late in the day...
PRESENTER - JIM WALEY: The winds of change are blowing through the ABC. To some they are a much needed breath of fresh air, to others a hurricane that's toppling the pillars of the ABC, its integrity and independence. The sackings, purges and budget cuts that have marked the eight month tenure of new managing director Jonathan Shier are seen by many staff as a deliberate dumbing down of the ABC, a conservative plot to change the culture of the ABC, teach the staff some respect for the views of the political right and discourage criticism of the government.
This could just be conspiracy theory run wild, but Sunday's investigative reporter John Lyons has unearthed evidence of what looks very like political interference coming from the top of the ABC. His report is our cover story.
[Excerpt from The Games]
GINA RILEY - The Games: Look at this.
JOHN CLARKE - The Games: Well, what is it?
RILEY: We send this overseas.
CLARKE: Yeah, what is it?
RILEY: The rest of the world wants John Howard to apologise.
CLARKE: Yeah, correct.
RILEY: Sit down.
JOHN HOWARD - ACTOR: Good evening. My name is John Howard, and I'm speaking to you from Sydney, Australia, host city of the Year 2000 Olympic Games.
[end excerpt]
REPORTER - JOHN LYONS: Under Australian law, what happened after this broadcast should never happen. Pressure to try to censor political satire on the ABC.
[Excerpt from The Games]
HOWARD: I speak for all Australians in expressing a profound sorrow to the Aboriginal people. I am sorry.
[end excerpt]
REPORTER: This skit got to air, but the repercussions were extraordinary and have been kept secret inside the ABC until now. Today Sunday reveals the winds of political interference at the national broadcaster, how a drama producer was rebuked for the satire based on the other John Howard's refusal to make an apology to Aboriginal stolen children, a rebuke that is a clear, flagrant breach of the ABC's Charter of Independence required by the ABC Act.
HOWARD: The ABC must, as a national broadcaster, have independence from the government of the day - must -otherwise we don't have an organisation that can represent the views of all the people.
JONATHAN SHIER - MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ABC: But I have to tell you, all's up for grabs. All's up for grabs.
REPORTER: In Jonathan Shier's ABC, this is year zero.
SHIER: Dangerous territory this, sorry guys, dangerous territory but, you know, I have to say when I see the same thing three times I want to switch off. And I'm thinking, and I work there. I mean, I care. What about those other people?
REPORTER: When this man returned to run the Australian Broadcasting Corporation after twenty-four years overseas, the organisation braced itself for what many, both inside and outside, agreed was a much needed shake-up.
SHIER: A bit of respect goes a long way.
REPORTER: But few could have anticipated the brutality of the sackings and purges in the largest changes in the corporation's history - the Shier revolution.
DAVID ELSTEIN - CHANNEL 5 UK: He takes aim and shoots. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there's blood on the floor at the ABC.
CHRISTOPHER PEARSON - FORMER HOWARD SPEECH WRITER: Turmoil is a healthy outcome in a situation like the ABC's. The ABC's basic problem is that it's been captured by its staff.
HUGH MCGOWAN - FORMER ABC CHIEF PROGRAMMER: It's frightening because I don't know if he understands quality at all. It's frightening because he has thrown out people who haven't been given a go.
REPORTER: The upheaval wrought by Jonathan Shier has distracted attention from an even more important story, how the Liberal Party has achieved something it has long coveted: a majority of its board appointments with current or past allegiances to coalition parties.
REPORTER: Let me put to you a very blunt question: Has the board of the ABC been hijacked by the Liberal Party?
DONALD MCDONALD - ABC CHAIRMAN: Oh, come off it. That's an absurd question.
REPORTER: So sensitive is the ABC chairman Donald McDonald about issues relating to Jonathan Shier's management style and the Liberal Party's agenda, that he tried to walk out of an interview with Sunday, saying the ABC's 7.30 Report was able to do its interviews in five minutes.
MCDONALD: I'm leaving now. I'll give you five minutes.
REPORTER: Okay.
MCDONALD: The 7.30 Report can do wonderful things in ...
REPORTER: Well, they're obviously ...
MCDONALD: ... worthwhile in five minutes.
REPORTER: They do it their way, we do it...
MCDONALD: More or less as though I'm sitting in the same place.
REPORTER: Today Sunday will reveal what is really happening on the ground as the Shier cyclone circles overhead. How the close friendship between Donald McDonald and the Prime Minister John Howard has had some ABC managers pre-emptively reacting to perceived political pressure.
PHILLIP ADAMS - FORMER ABC REPORTER: You were clearly one of John Howard's most vocal and visible opponents. What would we do if we were asked to remove you from the program? We were merely reading the wind and anticipating our possible responses.
REPORTER: And the man who was chief programmer of the ABC for four years reveals his view that the most senior head of news and current affairs, Paul Williams, was sacked because of the desire of the Howard government to remove him, which would be a clear breach of the central tenet of the ABC's charter, independence from the government.
MCGOWAN: Politically motivated, obviously.
SHIER: A lot of people have reminded me of the charter. I'm a lawyer, so I read the charter before I went to the interview. I have to tell you, inform, educate and entertain is not very restraining if you are malintentioned.
REPORTER: Sunday also details a political bombshell - a secret proposal to break up and sell off parts of the ABC.
Even after seven months, ABC insiders know little of their new boss. This address to staff in June was never broadcast, though a copy was leaked to Sunday by a former employee. It shows Jonathan Shier's skill with delivering a sales pitch.
ABC SPOKESMAN: This is a private meeting with ABC staff. We would ask that all our journalists respect that.
REPORTER: Most ABC staff and managers were approached were too nervous to be interviewed. ABC Corporate banned us from filming inside ABC production units.
SHIER: You don't know where you sit at the moment. But I know where you sit. But I suspect a lot of you can make that happen very well.
REPORTER: Jonathan Shier was very much a surprise candidate for the ABC job. One of Shier's former London colleagues, David Elstein, said after Thames TV lost its licence Shier was a bit unemployed because of the enemies he'd made.
ELSTEIN: But I think he was disappointed and I think he felt quite keenly the loss of status.
REPORTER: Eventually Shier found a position at Baltic TV, which, to put into context, is smaller than Australia's fourth network, Channel Ten.
ELSTEIN: To have fallen on his feet at the ABC must be like a dream come true. I mean it's ... I'm sure he'd rather be working at a commercial broadcaster.
REPORTER: Donald McDonald came to the rescue. Not only did the ABC have a job for Shier, it had the top job for him. His full-time job prior to the ABC was in Baltic Television. Had he done anything there that suggested that he'd be good for running the ABC?
MCDONALD: The board has been extremely happy with that appointment. I don't really need to canvass with you or anybody else what his prior experience was.
REPORTER: Jonathan Shier had trailed his coat. He approached magazine publisher Australian Consolidated Press for a job but was knocked back. He approached Cable and Wireless Optus for a job and was again knocked back.
MCDONALD: What was the relevance of that?
REPORTER: Well, if two other major Australian companies felt he wasn't good enough for them to give a job to, how does he end up as the managing director of an organisation that gets five hundred million dollars a year of public money?
MCDONALD: Well, I suggest to you they probably made mistakes, both of them.
ELSTEIN: When he was appointed some people were astonished. Others were impressed that an organisation like ABC would take as high a risk as that because he's quite an emotional person. He's prone to outbursts of aggression and occasionally of petulance and it's not always easy for him to control that.
REPORTER: As chairman you argued the case before the board for Jonathan Shier's appointment. What did you find compelling about him?
MCDONALD: I don't know what you mean that I argued the case.
REPORTER: You took his name to the board. What did you as chairman find compelling about him?
MCDONALD: Well, I don't want to be tiresome about the selection process, but I didn't take his name to the board. The board, the whole of the board, was the less ... selection process.
REPORTER: After the other four candidates on the shortlist fell through, Donald McDonald became desperate. Jonathan Shier was now the last man standing. But even one of Shier's own referees shocked head-hunters when he told them not to hire him because of his extremely short fuse. Donald McDonald then telephoned Sam Chisholm in London, the former Australian TV executive, for his opinion. Chisholm also urged against Shier being hired. In his characteristically blunt way he said, don't touch him.
[Excerpt from first TV broadcast, 1956]
BROADCASTER: This is television.
BRUCE GYNGELL - FIRST TV BROADCASTER: Good evening and welcome to television.
[end excerpt]
REPORTER: In the end, it was a reference from the late Bruce Gyngell, the first man on Australian television, that got Jonathan Shier the ABC job. Gyngell and Shier had been part of a supper club in London but had never worked together.
Early this year, Bruce Gyngell told me there were three reasons he recommended Shier for the job. Quote: he had not lived in Australia for a long time, he had never worked at the ABC, and he had never been part of broadcasting in Australia. All of this meant Shier would be able to bring a new light to the ABC. Bruce Gyngell admitted that his recommendation of Jonathan Shier had been based on a gut feeling.
MCGOWAN: I'm just terrified that the public, and especially ABC viewers, do not realise just how serious the situation is at the moment.
REPORTER: The French Riviera, Jonathan Shier enjoying himself here last month at the ritzy Carlton Hotel in Cannes, attending a television conference. Shier showed he's not one to cut costs. In Cannes he entertained lavishly, taking eight ABC managers with him. In contrast, the Nine Network sent three. Shier likes the good life, insisting on being chauffeur-driven.
One of the extraordinary aspects of the seven months since Jonathan Shier took over is the huge cost blow out. Seachange, the ABC's most successful drama ever, was developed by former drama chief Sue Masters.
SHIER: I would like to think that Sue Masters will be head of drama.
REPORTER: But Shier lost to Channel Ten his drama guru, whose ABC projects were nominated for fifteen AFI Awards this month. Sue Masters was paid less than one hundred thousand dollars a year, but has been replaced by two people with a net salary of more than five hundred thousand dollars a year. Friends say Sue Masters' major concern was the dwindling budget for ABC produced drama.
MCGOWAN: Oh, it's a huge loss. I mean, just the contribution of Seachange lifted our ratings ginormously and helped that Sunday seven-thirty timeslot. Sue did a wonderful job for the ABC and to see her depart was an absolute tragedy. I would not have let her go.
REPORTER: The pattern of more managers for more pay has been repeated throughout the new, bloated structure. In Shier's new regime, layers of positions still have to be filled. On top of this, he has paid far more than legally required to many of the forty or so executives sacked, in the hope they will not speak to the media. Many remain on full pay with their cars and mobile phones still being paid for months after they have been sacked.
MCGOWAN: Oh, it's amateursville. But highly dangerous. I shouldn't be flip about it, it's highly dangerous.
REPORTER: Why is it highly dangerous?
MCGOWAN: Well, I mean, you can't just start throwing people out of an organisation without knowing them. Without knowing the standard of their work. Come on.
REPORTER: For his part, the Minister responsible for the ABC, Richard Alston, seems unperturbed.
RICHARD ALSTON - FEDERAL MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: I can well understand that a lot of people will feel threatened by that, just as happens with any other major organisation. I mean, BHP and others have had almost near death experiences and they come through much the stronger, and there's no reason why it shouldn't happen here just as it happened with the BBC some years ago.
REPORTER: Shier's restructuring suffered a setback when the Industrial Commission ruled that many of the changes were in breach of agreements signed by the ABC only weeks before.
ALSTON: Well, I don't think we'd be comfortable about someone breaching the law - quite the opposite. But we certainly would be supportive of someone who was determined to get the best people in place, who had a performance pay approach and who was concerned with real value for money. And if that means less people being paid more, as long as the end result is a quality outcome, then it's a matter for him.
REPORTER: In fact, Shier has employed more people being paid much more. Even on the ABC's own official figures, twelve senior directors have replaced seven, at an extra cost of a million dollars a year. Yet chairman McDonald insists the overall salaries fund won't be increased. Something doesn't add up.
How are you going to pay for all those extra positions? Will something give?
MCDONALD: No, nothing will give. It's my understanding that the budget for salaries will not increase.
REPORTER: Shier returned from his European trip in time for this week's board meeting, which dealt with major budget tightening.
[Excerpt from ABC News]
NEWSREADER: There's a flash - the missile fighter is coming straight over again.
[End excerpt]
REPORTER: To pay for its cost blowouts, the ABC is going to have to make massive cuts to its news and current affairs budget, once considered its central pillar.
[Excerpt from ABC TV]
NEWSREADER: Real journalism. ABC TV, radio and online.
[End excerpt]
MCGOWAN: If change is for the good, I'll be in there. But one is ... I've seen television stations collapse because people rush in and say, oh, the predecessor was, you know, a twit and we've got to do this and we've got to do that and the whole thing falls over.
REPORTER: ABC insiders say there's a nervousness here in the boardroom, a reluctance to discuss Shier's spending on his own travel costs. Those insiders say that if the board concludes Donald McDonald has made a mistake with Shier, they will have a trigger to sack Shier by his cost blow out, especially if the spending is on himself.
Could you give us an estimate of how much Jonathan Shier has spent on overseas travel in his first six months?
MCDONALD: He has not spent anything on his international travel that isn't entirely appropriate.
REPORTER: Why won't you tell the public? I thought the ABC was answerable to the public.
MCDONALD: Because it's spectacularly trivial, inappropriate sort of question.
REPORTER: Ian Henschke is a long time ABC reporter on Landline. Now the staff-elected member of the ABC board, even he is nervous of crossing Shier and McDonald. In the growing culture of fear and lack of accountability, Donald McDonald urged him not to appear on Sunday.
IAN HENSCHKE - ABC: Donald McDonald didn't stop ... try to stop me talking to you. Donald McDonald ... I wouldn't ... I don't ...
REPORTER: It was his express wish, though?
HENSCHKE: No, no, no, no. I do not wish to discuss this particular issue.
REPORTER: Jonathan Shier, amid massive cutbacks, is spending a huge amount of money on redundancies, on extra management and on his own travel and overseas expenses and entertainment.
HENSCHKE: I do not ... I am not my brother's keeper. I do not follow Jonathan Shier's moves. I do not know what his moves are. I mean, these are questions that you should ask Jonathan Shier.
REPORTER: Staff resentment of Jonathan Shier's overseas travel has been fuelled by Shier himself, with his repeated implication that he doesn't need the ABC as much as the ABC needs him.
MCGOWAN: Oh, he said he was independently wealthy and really didn't need the job at the ABC, which I found to be quite interesting.
REPORTER: Why do you think he was telling people that?
MCGOWAN: I think he might have been slightly embarrassed about the small figure.
SHIER: You are here to make quality output. If you're not here for that reason, please, please let somebody else who's walking the streets of Australia take your place. Because one of the great things you learn when you use these head-hunters and all these other people you use, is the number of people who are not here, who would like to be here.
MCGOWAN: To have a managing director not give the staff a chance to prove themselves, but to start looking - head-hunting - two months before he actually takes up his position is terrifying.
INQUIRY SPOKESMAN: Now, what you've admitted is the chief spoke to the chairman, does the chairman have the authority ...
REPORTER: One enduring mystery is how Jonathan Shier knew who to sack within days of taking over the job. During a Senates Estimates Committee hearing in May, Shier was called to account about some of his early moves.
SHIER: ... to decide whether he's ... to ask him whether he's prepared to answer questions ...
REPORTER: Senators grilled him on how he was able to employ headhunting firms to look for talent with no ABC history months before he took up his own job.
INQUIRY SPOKESMAN: So, this was done on the chairman's authority, was it, Mr Shear [sic]?
SHIER: Well, I'm not precious, but it's Mr Shier. I certainly asked the chairman and it was done on the chairman's approval ... with the chairman's authority.
CARO LLEWELLYN - FORMER ABC EMPLOYEE: Dear Jonathan and Sue, today I'm leaving the position as Radio National's marketing manager with a great deal of sadness.
REPORTER: Other ABC staff have gone of their own accord when Shier's reshuffles have made their position untenable. Caro Llewellyn wrote a passionate email to Jonathan Shier the day she left.
LLEWELLYN: I realised I had to go. This is a demotion for me and for many of my colleagues and I feel you will lose a lot of very good people with this move.
REPORTER: Without any consultation, the name of her department was changed and her position was downgraded.
So are you concerned about the future of the ABC and some of your former colleagues?
LLEWELLYN: Yes. That's why I'm here (laughs). The ABC is a very, very special place and it's not something that you just go in and muck around with for the sake of mucking around. It actually works very, very well. The quality that it produces with the number of people that it has on its staff is amazing.
REPORTER: Jonathan Shier inherited a house divided. After years of restructuring and the Howard government's ten per cent Budget cut in 1996, ABC staff were already split. One of the few employees who will speak in support of the Shier agenda is staff-elected board member, Ian Henschke.
HENSCHKE: I think Jonathan Shier is trying to bring the ABC into the twenty-first century. His vision includes three areas: radio, TV and online. And if you think about radio, in the beginning was the word, that was radio, the word was made flesh through television and then you've got the spirit that moves all things, which is online media.
REPORTER: Sunday could find no other staff prepared to endorse Jonathan Shier, let alone this wholeheartedly. Do you think most staff are supporting his changes at the moment.
HENSCHKE: I haven't done a survey of the staff, so I wouldn't know what the overall feeling is.
REPORTER: In the four weeks since Ian Henschke did this interview, he changed his mind about Shier, saying the managing director was pursuing a risky strategy which would cost many jobs.
MERRICK amp; ROSSO - JJJ BROADCASTERS: On Triple J, that's Rage Against the Machine, voice of the voiceless ...
REPORTER: The ABC, with its irreverent outlets such as the youth network Triple J, has long had a proud sense of independence and forthright comment. But today staff are looking over their shoulders.
ROSSO: Gosh, it's seventeen minutes away from four with Merrick and Rosso, and the crew's still here filming the red light going on and off.
MERRICK: Yes (laughs). Oh, this is Triple J.
Shier's going to have a look at our pay and he's just going to go, what do I pay those monkeys for.
JEN OLDERSHAW - JJJ PRODUCER: And that's on the busy days.
MERRICK: Yeah. Yeah.
HOWARD: I'm hearing screaming about what's happening in the ABC.
REPORTER: In part two, we reveal clear political interference in the national broadcaster, which means the ABC independence from government has been breached.
[commercial break]
PRESENTER: Since the Howard government came to office on 1996 there have been seven appointments to the board of the ABC. All but one are associated with the conservative side of politics. At the same time, ABC staff have complained of unprecedented political interference in what they put to air, from political satire to acerbic comment.
John Lyons continues our cover story.
[excerpt from The Games]
JOHN HOWARD - THE GAMES: I am sorry, we are sorry. Let the world know and understand that it is with this sorrow that we as a nation will grow and seek a better, a fairer and a wiser future. Thank you.
GINA RILEY - THE GAMES: What do you think?
[end excerpt]
REPORTER: The ABC's cult satire The Games, borrowing John Howard the actor, star of the ABC's most successful drama Seachange, to deliver the apology John Howard the Prime Minister would not.
[Excerpt from The Games]
RILEY: Prime Minister, this is going overseas. No one overseas knows what the Australian Prime Minister looks like.
JOHN CLARKE - THE GAMES: Do you think?
RILEY: Hey, look the building next door has closed circuit television. I pump the tape through there to ...
CLARKE: Oh yes.
[End excerpt]
REPORTER: Today Sunday reveals the political pressures now compromising this kind of artistic freedom.
HOWARD: I'm hearing screaming about what's happening in the ABC.
REPORTER: Seachange is said to be the Prime Minister's favourite TV show. Here is its much loved character mayor, Bob Jelly, sending him up, satirising the PM's stand on Aboriginal reconciliation and what he calls the black arm band view of history.
HOWARD: I was proud to do it, I was glad that for once, you know, I could be proud to have the name that I have and that it was useful.
REPORTER: But this proud independence in ABC programming has been breached, and artists, journalists and producers at one of the country's major cultural institutions are now feeling a distinct culture of political pressure.
HOWARD: Whenever an executive or anyone in any form of control in the ABC gets touchy about a certain political subject because they're afraid of losing funding or because they're afraid of what the government of the day might think, then it's a worry because it goes against the independence of the ABC to either satirise or make political comment.
[Excerpt from The Games]
HOWARD: We are one of the few countries on earth with our own sky.
[End excerpt]
REPORTER: Actor John Howard cleared his appearance on The Games withSeachange producer Sally Ayre-Smith. She was rebuked by a senior ABC executive whom she declined to name. The rebuke of creative people once would have been considered unacceptable as blatant political interference and a clear breach of the ABC's charter of independence.
Such a provable breach of the ABC charter could now require the ABC to initiate an independent inquiry.
HOWARD: Well, traditionally that's what fools are for - to mock the king and the court. And that's how I see at least half of my role. One is to satirise and make stories of Australian people no matter who they are, and the other one is to mock authority (laughs). And so by doing that, to open our minds to whether things are going well or not, or whether they could be improved or not.
REPORTER: The Seachange rebuke was not an isolated case. After ABC producers aired Malcolm Fraser's reconciliation speech in August, which dominated the news agenda for days, another rebuke came from above.
MALCOLM FRASER - FORMER PRIME MINISTER: Surely it is reason enough to shut the doors of the courts and solve the issues politically which is what ought to happen, which is what reconciliation demands.
REPORTER: This time the complaint came from new head of television, Gail Jarvis. Jarvis told producers the speech in which Malcolm Fraser criticised the Prime Minister should not be broadcast except in the news. Jarvis confirmed she rebuked commissioning editor June Pritchard. Jarvis claims her complaint was due to cost and producers going behind her back. Producers insist the rebuke was political.
(Excerpt from Mr Magoo)
MR MAGOO: Oh Mr Magoo, you've done it again.
(End excerpt)
PHILLIP ADAMS - FORMER ABC BROADCASTER: And I know, for example, that on one occasion on radio I referred to the Prime Minister as Mr Magoo. It was suggested to me by management that I should apologise.
REPORTER: ABC broadcaster Phillip Adams believes he too has been the victim of the new mood of political self-censorship at the ABC. Notoriously disliked in conservative circles, Adams regularly criticises the Howard government on hisLate Night Live program on Radio National.
ADAMS: I have always regarded Mr Howard as not being very good at perceiving big pictures.
REPORTER: Now, can you tell us who it was who instructed you or told you that you should apologise?
ADAMS: I was neither instructed nor told, I was asked, and I declined to do so.
REPORTER: Who asked you?
ADAMS: It was the manager of Radio National.
REPORTER: Soon after the Mr Magoo incident in July, Phillip Adams was visited by that manager, Steven Alward, here at home.
ADAMS: I was told then that the issue of me had gone to the board, that Donald McDonald had taken it to the board, and that the board had decided that I was surplus to requirements. When I put this to ...
REPORTER: To pre-empt what he claimed was an attempt to remove him, Adams released his version of the conversation. If we don't sack you we'll get the sack ourselves, Adams says Alward told him.
Alward denies this version, but would not give his own.
ADAMS: There's no question that that meeting was as a consequence of political pressure, either real or perceived, and in fact I have that in writing from the manager of Radio National.
REPORTER: In an extraordinary admission which has not been published until now, Alward wrote to Adams saying his concern was due to perceived political pressure.
ADAMS: (reading from letter from Steven Alward) We made it clear that we were talking hypothetically. There was a new regime at the ABC. They were clearly one of John Howard's most vocal and visible opponents. There were regular complaints about you, which we defended you against. And what would we do if we were asked to remove you from the program? We made it clear that this had not been proposed by anyone. We were merely reading the wind and anticipating our possible responses.
REPORTER: Donald McDonald also denied the pressure had come from him or the board. Adams believes the trend to managers reading the wind of political pressure is just as dangerous.
ADAMS: Now, if McDonald is telling the truth - and he is a man of honour - it means that what I was told by Radio National management was a classic case of the pre-emptive buckle.
REPORTER: Out of the controversy, Adams managed to salvage another twelve month contract and remains on air. But this incident and the rebukes over theSeachange and Malcolm Fraser cases raises a serious question over politicisation of the ABC, a politicisation which is all too clear when you take a close look at the membership of the ABC board.
The majority of the Howard government-appointed members have current or past associations with the conservative party. Managing director Jonathan Shier was a member of the Liberal Party's Federal Executive - a fact he did not declare on the CV he submitted for the ABC job. Michael Kroger is the former high profile Victorian Liberal Party President. Ross McLean was the Liberal Party's Member for Perth for eight years. The newest member of the board, Leith Boulley, was a member of the Northern Territory Country Liberal Party.
REPORTER: In terms of intellectual rigour, who on the board would challenge the prevailing view and philosophies of the Coalition government?
RICHARD ALSTON - FEDERAL MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS: Well, I'm not sure that you want people there, with their designated task being to challenge the political orthodoxies, or views, of one political side rather than another. I mean, that is having a political debate.
REPORTER: The Liberal Party's presence seems to be everywhere, even the body set up by the ABC to seek community input has a Liberal Party identity. The convenor of the National Advisory Council Deborah Klika was personally selected by Donald McDonald. She has run for Liberal Party pre-selection in Sydney.
Even the chair of that is a member - declared member - of the Liberal Party.
DONALD MCDONALD - ABC CHAIRMAN: I ...
REPORTER: Do you think they're getting ...
MCDONALD: ... wasn't aware that it was an illegal organisation, or an illegal association. Why should it be so astonishing that anybody connected with the ABC should be even interested in politics, let alone connected to the Liberal Party?
REPORTER: Donald McDonald's newly appointed corporate and media adviser, Irene O'Brien, is a former staffer to two senior New South Wales Liberals. She offended the ABC's award winning training staff when, after two weeks in the organisation, she said ABC training needed to be more professional.
REPORTER: How would she know? She's been here two weeks. Jonathan Shier's been here six months. How would either of them know to say that?
MCDONALD: Jonathan Shier has taken an extraordinary range of advice from a very large number of people within the organisation. And if he has formed the view that changes need to be made to our training methods, I'm happy to trust that.
REPORTER: To check whether senior Liberals had any foreknowledge of Jonathan Shier's appointment, Sunday consulted Christopher Pearson, a former Howard speechwriter with strong contacts in the government.
Behind the scenes, what do you think was the reality of Jonathan Shier's appointment? Do you think it was cleared with the Minister and the Prime Minister?
CHRISTOPHER PEARSON - FORMER HOWARD SPEECHWRITER: I think that boards, when they're making those sorts of decisions, have informal conversations with the political class.
REPORTER: But do you think that happened, or do you know that those informal conversations happened?
PEARSON: I ... this is not a question I feel disposed to answer. (Laughs)
REPORTER: Another Adelaide conservative, the new ABC deputy chair, Professor Judith Sloan, is likewise extremely sensitive about the possible politicisation of the board. One board source told Sunday that in one meeting Professor Sloan actually said, the government won't be happy with that.
Sunday's source inside the board meeting says Sloan made the comments during a debate on digital television. In two conversations over the last month, Professor Sloan said she may have made those comments but has been misinterpreted. She said she was merely trying to ensure that the ABC was seen as worthy of government funding. To show the reality of the ABC board, she said ABC boards in the past have not acted naively or purely.
Professor Sloan, I want to talk to you about the digital television debate and when you used the phrase in one board meeting, the government won't be happy with that, what exactly did you mean?
PROFESSOR JUDITH SLOAN - ABC DEPUTY CHAIR: Well, I'm not sure I'm ... I don't think I want to answer any of this. I'm not at all happy, John, about the fact that there seem to have been confidences divulged and I've made my point very clear, believe me.
REPORTER: Professor Sloan revealed she had complained angrily to this week's board meeting that her comment that the government won't be happy with that was leaked to our program.
SLOAN: Well, I think I've explained this to you and, I mean, in a sense, this probably is kind of deal-breaking arrangement. I mean, I don't ... I really don't want to have this go on, actually. I mean, I'll have a conversation with you, but I don't want to be taped on this.
REPORTER: With that, the deputy chair of the ABC walked off.
And therefore the ABC board should keep in mind that if it upsets the government, it won't get its full funding, that it has to be a worthy organisation.
SLOAN: Blah, blah, blah. I'm not going ... I mean, the kind of conversation which says someone said, I said at the board, I'm not going to partake of that conversation. It's absolutely confidential what's said in the board and so if someone's divulged that I'm not going to ... oh, can you stop.
REPORTER: Does that irk you a bit as a chairman, that the deputy chair is couching things in terms of the government won't be happy with that?
MCDONALD: You must have already assumed that I wouldn't discuss with you any details of what is discussed at board meetings, and I'm not going to.
REPORTER: Now a claim that the hard edge of political influence was at work in the long-time bastion of ABC independence, news and current affairs. Former ABC programmer Hugh McGowan claims the ousting of news and current affairs chief Paul Williams was on the agenda well before Jonathan Shier even arrived.
HUGH MCGOWAN - FORMER ABC PROGRAMMER: I mean, how before ... two months before you take over a position can you say, we will replace the head of news and current affairs? How can you do it? You've got a brilliant chap there and you throw him out. It just doesn't add up, unless he's done something to upset somebody.
MCDONALD: That had nothing to do with the federal government.
REPORTER: Hugh McGowan says the decision to sack him was taken two months before Jonathan Shier even arrived, though.
MCDONALD: Well, Hugh has many skills but that sort of prescient seems to me quite astonishing.
REPORTER: Jonathan Shier told staff in June the ABC's news and current affairs programs were not sacred.
(Excerpt from ABC meeting)
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Well, what fate do you have in mind for programs likeAM, The World Today, and PM, Lateline and 7.30 Report? JONATHAN SHIER - ABC MANAGING DIRECTOR: Well, look, let's deal with the thorny subject of The 7.30 Report. I mean, you know, everyone talks to me about The 7.30 Report, and they always link it to state-based broadcasting, do I want it? And, you know, first of all, I don't know whether 7.30 is the right place to be doing this anyway. I'll be told. I'll listen.
Secondly, I don't know whether the format's right. Thirdly, I haven't addressed the state issue yet. But I have to tell you all's up for grabs. All's up for grabs. But the idea that incarnate in this program is the entire raison d'tre of the ABC and that what everybody else does is sort of peripheral is not something I'm prepared to accept. You know what the problem is, it shouldn't even be an issue. The programs should be so good no-one should be asking the question.
(Excerpt from PM)
MARK COLVIN - PM PRESENTER: Coming up tonight on PM, when hundreds of thousands ...
(End excerpt)
REPORTER: Last week came the leaking of a proposal from one of Shier's new managers, the head of local radio. It calls for the cutting back of PM and other current affairs programs, even giving managers of local stations the ability to drop them. News staff say they fear the major 7.45 morning bulletin is next.
COLVIN: I think it's a very dangerous period if you've got threats to editorial independence, integrity, if you've got threats to what the journalism of the ABC does, which is very central not only to the ABC, but to the national life, I think.
JOHN MILLARD - ABC PRODUCER: The top of the list is the word independence, the genuine independence. I'm not sure, I haven't got a transcript of your talk. But whilst I liked a lot of the things you said, I didn't hear you use that word, let alone emphasise it and put it at the top of the list.
SHIER: My problem is the people who value independence are apparently not enough because they watch programs that are not independent.
REPORTER: Whatever the truth about political targeting of ABC journalism, it's clear that in the Shier game plan the news and current affairs empire is on the retreat.
SHIER: Somebody said we had nine hundred people in news and current affairs in the corporation and ten in education. I don't know whether those figures are right or wrong. All I know is it sends a huge message in terms of priorities. Not that news and current affairs isn't a priority but certainly education apparently isn't.
REPORTER: Ironically, salvation for the journalism of the ABC may lie in the rural and regional heartland of the National Party side of government. Deputy Prime Minister and Nationals Leader, John Anderson, has spoken up against the Liberal tide in support of programs like The 7.30 Report.
Is there a danger that sometimes the baby can be thrown out with the bathwater? Is that a danger that's existent?
JOHN ANDERSON - DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: I think we're signalling that we do think it's a danger and we want to ensure that the ABC knows that we believe very strongly that shouldn't happen.
(Excerpt from ABC advertisement)
MALE VOICE-OVER: A portrait of Yvonne Kenny. Out now on CD at ABC shops, ABC centres, music ...
(End excerpt)
REPORTER: Sunday can also detail today a secret proposal to break up and sell off parts of the ABC. Despite repeated denials from members of the government, merchant bank Credit Suisse First Boston has done a detailed report on separating different business units within the ABC and selling those off, leaving only primary objective areas.
So politically sensitive is the issue of the privatisation of parts of the ABC that nobody wanted to talk about this report. But Credit Suisse First Boston did confirm to us that it initiated the report last year, which looked at the separating, breaking up and selling off of parts of the ABC. It then sent this secret report to the Department of Finance's office of asset sales, but was told some time later that the issue was too politically sensitive.
But something very odd happened. Early this year the ABC itself approached Credit Suisse First Boston, which has close links to the Liberal Party, to ask them to do a report into possible corporate deals.
If Jonathan Shier or the board came to you as minister and said we've looked at the numbers, we believe it's in the ABC's best interest that some of these things can be sold off, what would your reaction to that be?
ALSTON: We wouldn't have any difficulty with the ABC board reaching its own judgements about how they should operate, as long as it's consistent with their charter obligations.
REPORTER: As the marketing line goes, it's your ABC. But increasingly, under Jonathan Shier and Donald McDonald, it's harder to see just which ABC we're paying for.
DAVID ELSTEIN - CHANNEL 5 UK: It may turn out to be a scorched earth policy. Good luck to the ABC and all who sail in her, and I hope the captain of the ship doesn't drive you off the rocks.
PRESENTER: John Lyons reporting there, the producer Mick O'Donnell.
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.
MARK COLVIN: Last night I interviewed the ABC's managing director, Mark Scott, about the controversy over the broadcaster's reporting of asylum seekers' claims that they'd been mistreated by navy personnel.
The story included footage of asylum seekers getting treatment for burns on their hands.
A key part of my interview with Mr Scott focussed on whether the ABC was right to use the phrase "the footage appears to back the allegations" of the asylum seekers.
Here's part of what the managing director said:
(Excerpt of February 3 interview on PM)
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.
MARK COLVIN: Mark Scott, and last night's ABC Media Watch said the ABC had "over-reached, by essentially endorsing the allegations of navy mistreatment".
Presenter Paul Barry said the ABC should have been "far more cautious, given the evidence it had, and given it was making such a big call against the navy."
Tonight Mark Scott and the head of ABC News and Current Affairs, Kate Torney, have essentially conceded on the phrasing.
In a statement, they say:
"The wording around the ABC's initial reporting needed to be more precise on that point."
"We regret if our reporting led anyone to mistakenly assume that the ABC supported the asylum seekers' claims."
The statement concludes:
"Our journalists will continue to investigate and cover this story, and we will continue to urge Australian authorities and the Government to disclose more to the Australian public about the events on board those boats."
