It took an editorial disaster for the Coalition to boycott Q&A, but it was a decision that should have been made long ago.
Following Zaky Mallah's now infamous appearance on Q&A, Prime Minister Tony Abbott has issued an order banning the Coalition frontbench from appearing on the ABC's flagship Monday night program.
Abbott's decision has provoked outrage from political opponents. Some even suggested that it's an attack on freedom of speech.
But no one would suggest Abbott was attacking freedom of speech by declining an interview with Green-Left Weekly. The political bias of the publication is clear for all to see.
It is perfectly legitimate for politicians — or indeed anyone — to be selective when deciding when to give media interviews or appear on panels.
Unfortunately, this is an accurate comparison. Despite its attempts at objectivity, the institutional make-up of the ABC is clear.
In a 2013 survey of Australian journalists, 41 per cent of ABC staff declared the Greens most closely reflected their political attitudes. This is several times larger than the Greens support in the wider community. A further 32 per cent of ABC journalists surveyed declared they would give their first preference to the ALP.
With these demographics, it is remarkable the ABC's current affairs team has remained as objective as it has. Unfortunately Q&A has not met this same standard. And it's not even a good show.
It has healthy ratings in a prime-time timeslot. But it is a terrible platform for serious policy discussion. Presented in front of a live studio audience, it is an environment that rewards demagogues who can elicit applause. Unlike the ABC's traditional current affairs programs, guests on Q&A are rarely asked to back up their broad statements with detail. This low level of scrutiny would not be possible on 7.30 and Lateline.
This environment is only worsened by the frequent celebrity panelists who are asked to comment on issues of policy often beyond their understanding. This isn't just a view held by conservatives. It's a view that's been articulated by a modern ALP hero and at least one former boss of the ABC.
Speaking at the Brisbane Writers Festival in 2011, former prime minister Paul Keating declared that he wouldn't be caught dead on the show.
Keating would never have allowed his ministers to go on the program at all. As the Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time, Keating said, "If I was the Prime Minister I would not let federal ministers go on that program. You just wash the government through mud every time you turn up."
As former ABC managing director Jonathan Shier said last week, the show is also plagued by "sensationalist stunts".
Granting Zaky Mallah a platform was merely the latest attempt at a style of "gotcha" journalism that is unbefitting of Australia's national broadcaster. Q&A's producers have a long track record of outsourcing provocative questions to audience members in an attempt to drum up controversy.
The same stunt was pulled in 2010, when the show hosted former prime minister John Howard and solicited a question from former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks. And again in 2011, when a video question from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was shown to Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
These may be legitimate questions that Australian politicians ought to answer. But they are presented in a manner designed to elicit controversy, rather than illuminate important issues. This may elicit applause from the live studio audience, it may create news headlines that increase ratings, but it does not create an environment of serious political discussion.
Q&A is a show that favours demagoguery and gotcha journalism. A hostile environment for any government interested in serious policy discussion. And Tony Abbott is right to declare a boycott.
ADVERTISEMENT
No comments:
Post a Comment