These kinds of internal disputes have always been there, in my experience, in PBS and NPR, because the right has always hated the notion of those places existing—even though they don’t even begin to compare in terms of their place in the communications forum with the role of the ABC in Australia, let alone the BBC, which is a monster. NPR and PBS combined are little minnows in comparison. But that traditional anti-statist, free enterprise, capitalist approach of the mainstream in the United States is much more suspicious of anything that looks like state-owned media than is the case in Europe.
Does the ABC have anything close to the kind of vetting process you experienced when making your documentaries for PBS?
No—but that was a question of the fact that most of the funding was coming from an outside body which wanted to exercise editorial oversight that went with that funding. To the extent that the ABC co-produces, which it does occasionally for documentaries, though never for news and current affairs, there is quite a bit of a battle of shared editorial control. But largely speaking, and certainly for news and current affairs, there is no oversight much above the level of executive producer for almost anything.
Of course, the government, which is your sole funder, must have had some issues with ABC content over the years and attempted to interfere?
There have been occasions in which the government has made it clear that in its view what the ABC is doing is not satisfactory. There are two famous examples. The first was during the Gulf War in 1991. The then-prime minister, Bob Hawke, who is very pro-Israel, was furious at the amount of prominence the ABC gave to an American Middle East expert who was known for his pro-Palestine views. His expertise in this instance was all about Iraq, and he was very good, and I thought pretty impartial in terms of what he was talking about regarding the war in Iraq. But because of his history of anti-Israel comment the pro-Israel lobby, which included the prime minister, became very incensed. The outcome was that the ABC didn’t really give way—the prime minister called for the sacking of various people who weren’t sacked—and it blew over in time.
The second and rather similar row was in the coverage of the current Iraq war. The Howard government had taken Australia into that war and the communications minister, Senator Richard Alston, was incensed by what he saw as biased political coverage, particularly on radio, and he basically wrote a formal complaint to the ABC—which is kind of bizarre, as though he were just another viewer, when he was the minister in charge of the ABC ultimately. The letter had around forty-five very specific complaints about what he claimed was biased coverage and it went through the normal ABC complaints procedure, through the independent review panel, and on from there to the official government regulator of broadcasting, at that time the Australian Broadcasting Authority. These people found various elements of the complaint justified, and most of them not justified.
But the government does not have the power to instruct the ABC board and through the board to instruct ABC programmers to do one thing or another. Even in that instance, there was no other real way he could make note of his displeasure.
Here the complaints are more than that. There’s a very loud movement to see the Corporation for Public Broadcasting defunded. Are there similar calls in Australia from the ABC’s attackers?
There is a small lobby, mainly from the libertarian right, led by a couple of sort of militant Friedman-esque think tanks, largely on economically ideological grounds—a deep dislike of state funding of anything that doesn’t have to be state-funded. They would argue there that if people want the kind of programming that the ABC provides these days they can pay for it through cable, or whatever, and in this age of media plenty there is far less justification for the existence of the ABC than there was when there was a real restriction of waveband.

Here we go again in CJR-Land!...
"Criticism of a perceived leftist bias" becomes a "right-wing attack!"
It is only too ironic that this piece would resort to such loaded language.
I see "right-wing".. But no mention of "left-wing"/
"RIght-leaning"... But of course there is no "left-leaning" going on.
#1 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 14 Mar 2011 at 11:51 PM
Here's a follow-up question for Mr. Holmes that you'll never see a CJR "watchdog" ask:
Given your observation that the bulk of ABC employees are left-leaning, what steps, if any, are mangers at ABC taking to diversify its workforce? If no such steps are being taken... Why?
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 11:20 AM
Western democratic political alignments boil down to interest groups more than to ideas. I often think it's the people who majored in the liberal arts and social sciences vs. the people who majored in business and engineering. Their psychological approaches to the world are different. Their career paths take them in different directions. There is intelligence on both sides, but differing types of intelligence. A generalization, of course, but the Aussie acknowledges about the same percentage of journalists down there that tilt left in their politics as is the case here.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 12:29 PM
Suddenly, padi believes in the Fairness Doctrine. SOCIALIST!
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 12:49 PM
I'm not advocating the Fairness Doctrine..
I'm just asking what this supposedly independent company is doing (or not doing) to address its self-acknowledged lack of diversity in its staff?
What's wrong with that, Thimbles?
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 04:43 PM
padi is just asking, though he claims to be asking only one thing when his post had two questions, if we include the "Why?".
padi is asking why ABC is not setting minimum quotas for the number of right-leaning hires. Asking why ABC doesn't question potential journalists about their political beliefs, so the hiring decisions can be politically correct.
Apparently, padi hasn't thought through the implications of his questions, since it appears that ABC would have to hire based on political persuasion to accomplish what he asks.
#6 Posted by brucekiller, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 07:47 PM
Now wait a minute Bruce...
First of all... ABC already hires based on the political persuasion of its employees!
How else does it end up with 80% of it staff being left of center, when compared to the general population? Obviously something in ABC's hiring process discriminates against right-leaning applicants.
As for the propriety of questioning applicants about their political persuasions... What's the difference between doing this and discriminating against applicants based on skin pigmentation (or lack of it) under a "diversity policy" as the New York Times has?
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 08:14 PM
In the world you inhabit, there must be many men who trained as nurses but can't find jobs in their chosen profession. How else do we end up with men so heavily underrepresented? Surely those who choose nursing as a career would be in proportion to their numbers in the general population, yet the estimates I find for males in nursing are less than 10% of those hired! Obviously, something in the hiring process discriminates against men.
It seems odd that you hold the New York Times' behaviour in high esteem. (Or, I should say, your notion of the New York Times' behaviour.) But I thank you for confirming that you like the quota idea.
#8 Posted by brucekiller, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 08:53 PM
Nursing is great example, Bruce...
There are diversity programs in place to get the nursing industry to "mirror the patient population"...
http://www.aacn.nche.edu/media/factsheets/diversity.htm
WHERE is the similar effort among "professional journalists" to
"mirror the reader population"?
I mean... When it comes to the "state of mind" regarding sexual preferences of applicants... "Professional journalism" is ostensibly all about "diversity".
When it comes to the "state of mind" regarding religious beliefs... Same thing...
But when it comes to the state of mind of political beliefs.... Nada... Zilch... Zippo...
Why the double standard?
Why can we discriminate on the basis of sexual persuasion and religious persuasion... But not on the basis of political persuasion?
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 15 Mar 2011 at 10:05 PM
Buildings are not very cheap and not everybody is able to buy it. However, mortgage loans are created to support different people in such kind of situations.
#10 Posted by Deana21Ratliff, CJR on Sat 17 Sep 2011 at 08:25 PM