Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, claims the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been biased in dealing with the waterfront dispute and other controversial matters. The ABC and its friends say it is balanced and responsible. Who is right?
Personally, I am with Alston on this issue, although when he also said that "most of the time the ABC is an institution of which all Australians can feel justifiably proud" I thought he was being fainthearted. Certainly, I believe there was a time when such sentiments were appropriate. But that was long ago.
I could cite much anecdotal evidence to support my case, including conversations with ABC staff who privately admit that the culture in sections of the organisation is hostile to anything that might be identified with the Liberal or National parties.
Nevertheless, I cannot rule out the possibility that maybe I only focus on and remember incidents which confirm my negative impressions. Perhaps others could produce different anecdotal evidence which would suggest that whatever the views of its employees, the ABC is generally meeting its statutory obligation to provide accurate and impartial news and information.
Furthermore, according to a survey the organisation commissioned last year, nearly 4 out of 5 people interviewed think the ABC is "balanced and even-handed in politics", and a massive 95 per cent think it does a good job of providing "reliable and accurate" news and current affairs programs. (The latter figure seems too similar to the percentages who supposedly voted for the Communist party in the former Soviet-controlled regimes of Eastern Europe. I can't help wondering whether those interviewed were chosen on a truly random basis, and whether they actually listen to the ABC.)
Is there any way Senator Alston and I could demonstrate to our fellow citizens that our doubts about the ABC's impartiality are justified? Conversely, is there anything the ABC could use to show us curmudgeons that our suspicions have no foundation?
Focusing on a single program, or even a couple, is not enough. The ABC's editorial policies state that balance between the major relevant viewpoints on important issues "may not always be reached within a single program or news bulletin, but will be achieved within a reasonable period". This is legitimate -- even with the best will in the world, it is not always possible to ensure that one side's arguments on an issue are followed immediately by those of their opponents.
The Canadians have an organisation that provides the kind of hard evidence necessary to make informed claims about media balance and accuracy. In 1987 the Fraser Institute, a privately-funded educational and research organisation, established the National Media Archive.
The NMA videotapes the key news programs from two major English-speaking television networks, the CBC -- the Canadian equivalent of our ABC -- and the commercial CTV, and transcribes them to a computer package that allows full searches of program content. NMA researchers, as well as members of the public, can then analyse these transcriptions, together with the programs from which they were taken, to assess how the different networks handled a given issue over a period of time. Occasionally, newspaper and radio treatment of an important matter is also examined.
The NMA uses a method known as "content analysis". Researchers identify the relevant news stories, and break them down into a number of statements. These statements are then coded in terms of various aspects, such as their origin -- a reporter, an interested party, or an expert commentator; whether they express favourable, unfavourable or neutral attitudes; and so on.
Some coding will depend on the issue under investigation. For instance, an analysis of stories about immigration might code statements according to whether they dealt with human interest, social impacts such as race relations and population growth, or economic impacts such as employment and investment.
Because a certain amount of interpretation is involved in some aspects of coding, the NMA goes to considerable lengths to ensure objectivity. Its research staff are hired from a wide range of political and educational backgrounds, ranging from marxists to right-wing libertarians, and those working on individual investigations usually represent opposing points of view.
During each project consistency in coding is regularly tested, and disagreements are discussed until consensus is reached. After the coding has been completed, the results are statistically analysed by computer, allowing precise figures to be produced about the nature of the news coverage.
In one study, for instance, the NMA found both the CBC and CTV news presented almost three times as many statements about the negative social effects of immigration than about the positive effects. Another study showed that the attention given to the five official parties in the Canadian Parliament after last year's election did not reflect the number of seats they held. Both networks virtually ignored the Bloc Québécois, and the commercial network gave much more attention to the Progressive Conservatives than their parliamentary standing seemed to warrant.
Nevertheless, the NMA is not without vocal opponents, who accuse it of everything from failing to recognise the limitations of content analysis, to running a hidden ideological agenda. (Its parent body, the Fraser Institute, favours market solutions to public policy problems over government intervention).
But the NMA depends on widespread confidence in its integrity and rigour. Its activities are guided by a board of respected academics and journalists. It readily provides information to anyone who wants details of the methods used in individual investigations, and has refined its procedures in response to constructive criticisms.
Certainly, producing figures to show that one side of an issue has been treated less favourably than the other does not in itself prove that media bias is at work. There may well be other reasons. But such figures provide an essential starting point, demonstrating that there is at least a case which needs to be answered. Our debates about the media would be a lot more productive if we had an independent and credible organisation like the National Media Archives.
No comments:
Post a Comment