It’s a very respectable argument in its way but it doesn’t have a chance of getting much headway given the ABC’s popularity with the public as a whole, which is considerable. Every time they do surveys of what people think about the ABC, asking whether they think it’s biased, there’s a massive majority who say they don’t think it is. When they ask whether people value the ABC as an institution, there are massive majorities in favor.
Even though it has a smaller audience than the commercial media in television, for example, its spread in radio means it’s very widely listened to—in the bush, etc. And its television audiences are respectable—they channel 15 percent when a popular commercial station will get 23, 24, 25 percent.
Someone in the coalition [of the conservative Liberal and National Parties] once said, “The ABC is our enemies talking to our friends.” There is a certain truth in that. Whatever the ideological propensities of the people who work at the ABC, it is kind of middle class welfare—an awful lot of people who vote conservative prefer the ABC to commercial media because of the kinds of programs it makes and because it doesn’t have huge swathes of advertisements all the way through it.
Your role seems something like that of an ombudsman. Do you see yourself, and your job, that way?
I don’t have any official function at all, but I do criticize the ABC, as well as everybody else in the media when I think that’s justified. At an official level we do have a director of editorial policies whose function, especially now that he is just about to put in charge of the whole ABC complaints procedure, in a sense makes him effectively the ABC’s ombudsman. He’s not in the editorial chain of command. On the whole, Australian media organizations don’t have ombudsmen in the way that a lot of mainstream news organizations do in the U.S.

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