A clear majority of working journalists do tend to be of a centre-left disposition

John Howard thinks too many media types are lefties.  True, but there's never been such a thing as "objective journalism"

Some truths are so self-evident that they are hardly worth discussing.  One of them is that political journalists are left-leaning on the ideological spectrum.  It is equally true that nothing more irritates so many reporters, editors and academics than the charge of media bias.

So it was hardly surprising that John Howard's recent speech on Australia's fourth estate raised eyebrows.  Speaking at the University of Melbourne's Centre for Advanced Journalism this month, the former prime minister remarked:  "I use my softest, least belligerent voice in saying this very, very quietly:  I think it is fair to say that a fairly clear majority of working journalists do tend to be of a centre-left disposition."

Most journalists sighed, rolled their eyes and echoed Ronald Reagan's famous response to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential debate:  "There you go again."  Melbourne-based media lecturer Jason Wilson, writing on the left-wing web site New Matilda, argued:  "The evidence for Australian journos being leftists deep down inside is weak and mixed."

In fact, all the available evidence indicates otherwise.  What Derek Parker said of the Canberra press gallery during the Hawke years in his book The Courtesans -- that "there is a spectrum of opinion within the gallery, but the centre of the spectrum, compared to Australia as a whole, is decidedly more pro-ALP and anti-conservative" -- could easily be said of that institution during the Howard years.

In 2004, a survey by the RMIT journalism department showed that 55 per cent of the profession described themselves as "Left" or "small-l liberal", whereas only 9 per cent labelled themselves "Right" or "conservative".  Queensland University journalism school professor John Hennington had earlier found that "political journalists leaned left rather than right by a factor of more than four to one", with 58 per cent of press gallery journalists describing their voting intentions as Labor and only 9 per cent Liberal.

These findings are neither surprising nor a peculiarly Australian phenomenon.  During the 1992 US presidential election, for example, a Roper survey of 139 Washington correspondents and bureau chiefs found that 89 per cent supported the Democrat candidate whereas only 7 per cent backed the Republican, even though Bill Clinton marginally beat George Bush by 43 per cent to 38 per cent that year.

Even the ABC journalist and former Fairfax editor Alan Kohler, in his otherwise critical response to Howard's speech a week later, concedes that "as a generalisation ... it is perfectly true" that "journalists are left of centre".  Who, moreover, could forget former Media Watch host David Marr's acknowledgement five years ago that journalism reflected "a soft-leftie kind of culture"?

The issue, however, is not whether most journalists are left-leaning;  it is, as Howard says, "a fact of life".  The issue is whether this is a serious problem.  Kohler says not, because journalists, or genuinely fair-minded ones at least, strive for objectivity in their news stories, and this is a far more powerful influence than cynical readers and viewers often seem to believe.

But it is also true that the term "objective journalism" is a misnomer:  every story involves subjective judgements.  You can strive for fairness and balance, but even in one's choice of topics, selection of guests, presentation of facts, one inevitably shows one's hand, and a journalist's (usually left-leaning) personal views may sometimes glimmer through.  The legendary American political journalist Tim Russert was himself a liberal and former Democrat staffer, but he knew this issue is a big unspoken problem in the profession.

Wilson argues that the Howard government's "protracted persecution of, and repeated inquiries into, the ABC never turned up any solid proof of bias where it counts".  Perhaps.  Certainly Victoria senator Richard Alston failed to prove that an entrenched anti-American bias seriously undermined the public broadcaster's claim to be an impartial news provider during the invasion of Iraq in March and April 2003.  It is also true that Australian life would be immeasurably poorer without the ABC.  Many public broadcast journalists are the best and the brightest in the nation;  News Radio is a national treasure;  its internet sites are outstanding;  and Barrie Cassidy's Insiders is essential viewing for any political junkie every Sunday morning.

Still, there is a strong groupthink mechanism at our taxpayer-funded broadcaster.  Examples abound.

Take man-made climate change and emissions trading.  The ABC has jettisoned all semblance of impartiality on the issue;  its journalists, with rare exceptions, now campaign with a constant stream of scare stories.  (Within two weeks recently, the otherwise excellent Lateline broadcast the doom-and-gloom scenarios of Bob Brown, Tim Flannery and Clive Hamilton, whereas in the past two years only one sceptic has been a studio guest -- Ian Plimer, in May -- and his scholarship was subjected to highly unbalanced, even contemptuous, scrutiny in a news segment just before he himself was interviewed.)

Take balance:  the ABC show Q&A prides itself on representing a fair and balanced spread of opinion in the public debate.  Yet according to web site The ShadowLands, in the five months to May 2009, 42 out of 80 guests were lefties (52.5 per cent), 27 out of 80 guests were righties (33.75 per cent), and 11 out of 80 guests were of indeterminate political persuasion (13.75 per cent).  Worse, excluding the two federal politicians from opposing sides who appeared each week, 27 guests were lefties, 12 were righties and 11 were of indeterminate political persuasion.

Take labels.  Some individuals or groups get labelled and others are described in neutral terms.  Thus The Spectator Australia -- an eclectic publication -- is "the right-wing magazine" whereas the Monthly -- a left-wing publication -- is "the independent magazine".  Why the health warning for the former, but not the latter?

Take disclaimers.  When the ABC broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle two years ago, host Tony Jones declared that the views expressed in the (right-wing) polemic were not the views of the ABC.  "That was quite an extraordinary thing to do, because of course they're not," says Howard.  "But there are plenty of other programmes that do not carry with them the dignity of that kind of disclaimer."  Indeed, has Aunty issued disclaimers when she broadcast other (left-wing) polemics on big tobacco, big oil and Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel?

Lest my argument is somehow misunderstood, let me be clear:  there is no cabal in newsrooms across the nation that plots the downfall of conservative politicians or conspires to slant the news in favour of progressive causes.  It is just that Howard is right to say that a clear majority of journalists are left-leaning, that sometimes their opinions will cloud their judgement, but that this also "is not something that should ever make somebody who's not of the centre-left disposition in any way despair".  After all, the fragmentation of the media in the era of the internet, cable television and talk radio allows more opportunities for different voices to be aired.

ADVERTISEMENT