Over the next year or two we are likely to see attacks on the ABC come from a number of directions. It is not possible, at this stage, to predict which direction the ABC’s enemies will take. As the ABC’s friends, we need to anticipate the range of possibilities, and prepare defenses.

1. Comprehensive or Alternative?
The first part of the ABC Charter states:
(1)The functions of the Corporation are:
(a )to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the Australian broadcasting system consisting of national, commercial and public sectors and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to provide:
(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and
(ii )broadcasting programs of an educational nature;
(b )to transmit to countries outside Australia broadcasting programs of news, current affairs, entertainment and cultural enrichment that will:
(i) encourage awareness of Australia and an international understanding of Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
(ii) enable Australian citizens living or traveling outside Australia to obtain information about Australian affairs and Australian attitudes on world affairs; and
(c )to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia.

In short, the ABC must provide both pushpin and poetry, both information and entertainment, both a national identity and multiculturalism, both programs for foreign nationals and programs for expatriate Australians.

The framers of this charter could not have been clearer. This is not an “either, or” charter. It is a “both” charter.

Yet the enemies of the ABC try to drive a wedge. On occasions some of the ABC’s friends fall into this wedge trap. As funding shrinks there can be temptations to abandon the aim of being comprehensive, and to suggest that the ABC should merely be an alternative, filling in the gaps left by other broadcasters.

Alternatively as funding shrinks there can be temptations for the ABC to go commercial, or at least semi-commercial. The influence of ABC Enterprises might rise, with the temptation to run more cooking programs so the ABC can sell more cooking books. There can be other pressures towards populism.

No one uses the ABC – the ABC is just middle class welfare
This has been a favorite from Richard Alston.

He (Senator Alston) said only about 10 per cent of Australians tuned in to the ABC and it would be hard to justify a funding boost unless ratings or audience reach improved, suggesting it dump some of its more esoteric programs.
“ The ABC is funded by taxpayers; taxpayers expect value for money; the ABC ought to be concentrating on generating greater levels of audience reach,” Sen Alston said. (1)

A similar view is taken by the Institute of Public Affairs and people associated with it. Michael Duffy, now a presenter with Radio National, said:

My concern is that working-class taxes are being spent in order that the middle classes can watch The Vicar of Dibley and Ballykissangel without ad breaks. I think there’s an element of snobbery or social distinction in Australia according to whether you like English or American popular culture. Many middle-class people’s sense of social identity comes in part from the fact that they like British shows rather than American ones. It’s a mark of intellectual distinction .(2)

The Institute of Public Affairs sings a similar song. The IPA’s Executive Director, Mike Nahan, wrote:

Taxpayers are not going to fork-out more money for the ABC, unless it caters more thoroughly and distinctively to their needs. ABC funding has been declining in real terms steadily since 1984 under both Labor and Coalition Governments and the reason is clear. The ABC has increasingly catered to a well-to-do elite who have other options available to them and have the wherewithal to purse these options. In other words, it is middle-class welfare. Its budget has been cut accordingly. (3)

Sometimes the argument then goes that the ABC should therefore be required to fund itself directly, either by selling its audiences to advertisers, or by becoming a subscription service selling specialized programs and services to the wealthy on the Pay TV model.

This could see the ABC’s more popular offerings commericalised, while its more specialist material is only available on a pay per view basis.

Then there is what appears to be the opposite viewpoint.
"The ABC is too populist – it is just aping the commercials. The ABC should focus on being an alternative, not a competitor. The ABC should be confined to educational programs and programs of minority interest. The ABC Charter needs to be rewritten."

Somehow Alston manages somehow to support both views (but not on the same day). The commercial stations like this approach, and there are those in government who see an advantage in this. Cut back the ABC Charter, sell of ABC Online to Telstra or MSN, sell off local radio and Classic FM (both of which could make profits in a commercial environment) sell off Channel 2 (which could also make profits) but keep an impoverished Radio National and a cut down “alternative” ABC 2 (Channel 21 on digital TV) service with Four Corners, Media Watch, specialist arts material, kids and educational programs. Cut out of the mainstream, ABC 2 would rapidly loose influence.

This could provide windfall profits for the government, and a huge reduction in funding for the ABC, while adhering to the requirements for the ABC to make educational programs, support the arts, and make informative documentaries.

As McKinsey and Co explain in their 1999 study, Public Service Broadcasters Around the World, there are two ways in which public service broadcasters like the ABC can fail to achieve their aims. The first is by having a large audience share, but failing to be different enough from the commercials, failing to be distinctive. The second is to be distinctive, but to have so small an audience that they make no real impact. They have little ability to keep the other media honest.

In short, both of the above seemingly contradictory approaches lead to a similar result. After surviving for a few years in such a weakened state the ABC could be quietly killed off. By that time the Alston and the IPA would have been proved right – only a small minority would be using what was left of the ABC.

Now that the government controls the Senate it could rewrite the ABC Charter to make it much narrower. It seemed that Gareth Evans, when he was Communications Minister in the Hawke Government, had similar ideas. He talked of “charter” and “non-charter” activities. It sounded a little bit like “core” and “non-core” promises.

2. Advertising, Sponsorship or Corporate Underwriting.
This has been an effective weapon against public service broadcasting in other countries. The government may decide that that now is the time to try it with the ABC. Also, quite apart from the government, there may be some on the ABC board, and some ABC staff, who would welcome advertising (or other potentially compromising commercial activities) as a means of easing the financial pressures.

We saw some of this happen in the ABC in the David Hill era, with back door sponsorship of infotainment programs. We saw attempts during the Johns era to sell ABC content to Telstra, which could have had serious implications for the editorial independence of the ABC. There is a separate, but related issue, concerning ABC Enterprises, and the influence that it might be having over program policy.

Proponents of advertising on the ABC often point to the SBS, and suggest that it hasn’t caused any harm there. However we have seen a steady decline in community language broadcasting on SBS television, and an increasing intrusiveness of the advertising there. When advertising was first introduced to the SBS it was quite restrained. Now the SBS board has been getting pressure from advertisers to put advertisements in the middle of programs, not just at the beginning and the end. No doubt advertisers will pay more for advertisements that are in ‘natural breaks’.

It seems that the SBS, perhaps under pressure from advertisers, is gradually moving away from its original brief as a multicultural broadcaster (at least in its TV service – SBS radio has much more of a multicultural focus).

With control of the Senate the government could remove the prohibition on advertising, and then cut the ABC budget further. It could then leave it to the ABC Board, and the staff, to decide whether to compromise, and accept some advertising, or suffer further decline. Then a few years later there’s a further funding cut, and a need for more advertising.

3. Amalgamation with the SBS.
This is another old favorite. It has often been argued that there would be huge savings here, through economies of large scale. Perhaps there would be.

On the other hand the economists also recognise the phenomenon known as ‘diseconomies of large scale”, a situation where “managing a large organisation with many workers spread over a large area can be very difficult, due to problems in control, co-ordination, motivation, communication and co-operation.” This can be commonly found in the case of acquisitions and mergers, where the company not only grows larger, but where there may be a clash of cultures between the two organizations being merged, combined with greater geographic spread.

This proposal has been a long-standing concern for ethnic broadcasters, who see ABC culture as being less sympathetic to multiculturalism than SBS culture.

However quite apart from the economic debates, or the concerns of ethnic audiences, the other concern about amalgamation with the SBS is bringing advertising in through the back door. Once advertising is allowed in a merged SBS/ABC organization, it will be hard to keep it quarantined.

4. “Tendentious Language”. Some sauce for the gander.
Allegations of anti-government bias in the ABC go back many years. They intensified in the Hawke-Keating years and have grown into an orchestrated campaign during the Howard years. It is not just the Howard government that is making these claims – a wide range of conservative forces are part of the campaign.

For a long time this campaign has had very little effect. Despite being oft-repeated, there has been little in the way of evidence. Opinion polls still show great public confidence in the even-handedness of the ABC.

However despite the fact that so many of Alston’s complaints were thrown out, despite the fact that neither the ABC internal inquiry, nor the ABC Independent Complaints Panel nor the ABA found any evidence of systematic bias, Alston scored a few points.

The most worrying was the attitude of the ABA. In the past the ABA took a very hands off attitude. More recently they have discovered the sin of ‘tendentious language’. It is a phrase said to have been a favourite of David Flint, but it has now been picked up and used against the ABC by the new Chair of the ABA.

It seems like a cliché, rather than “tendentious language” to suggest that “when war comes the first casualty is truth”. It was, after all, a member of George Bush’s republican party who first made that statement during the First World War.

In the majority of its findings against AM based on the Alston complaints, the ABA referred to tendentious language suggesting that information management or propaganda played a large role in the US war effort in Iraq. The ABA said that it was not unreasonable to suggest that governments, especially during wartime, would do their best to manage information, and to put the best light on their actions. However the ABC was found to be in breach of the standards on several occasions because the ABA judged that ABC reporters had suggested that the view being expressed by the US military was “propaganda and nothing more”.

The ABC reporters’ comments on the US military claims were certainly skeptical, perhaps even cynical. It did not strike me, as a listener, that the ABC reports were suggesting “propaganda and nothing more”, although they certainly made the point that the US military had a motive to putting the line that they did.

The ABA seems to be raising the bar here. It seems to be applying a more stringent standard than it has in the past when allegations of bias are raised. However we can reasonably ask that if the bar is to be raised, then everyone should be obliged to meet the new standards.

If it could be shown that the Iraqi statements were taken at face value, while the US statements were treated with skepticism, that would clearly establish bias. But that was not the allegation here. What the ABA seems to be saying here that any approach that suggests that what any party to a dispute is saying should be taken with extreme caution, is an example of bias.

In one way the ABA’s position is not unreasonable. It should be left to the listener or viewer to form a judgment on the credibility of the various protagonists. But are reporters required to take every statement at face value?

There is a most educational segment on Virginia Trioli’s drive program on ABC Local Radio in Melbourne. This once a week segment is, I think, called “The Spin Doctors” and in it a number of public relations and media consultants analyze the spin winners and the spin losers of the week. In so doing they discuss how the public figure in question responded to negative news. They debate if the response minimized the damage, or made it worse. In so doing they reveal the kind of advice they might have given to one of their clients in a similar situation. The whole basis of this program is that propaganda, information management, public relations, is a normal everyday part of life. Through this segment the audience are permitted to see some of the mechanisms, and are thus better equipped to make their own judgments in the future.

It seems to me that the ABA has made a big shift here. It is not that their position is totally unreasonable. There can be a fine line between letting the audience judge for itself, and making a legitimate comment on the reliability of information. It is really a question of consistency. The ABA has gone from a very soft approach towards issues of truth, accuracy and balance (especially as applied to Jones and Laws), to a very hard approach (especially as it applies to the ABC). Perhaps a much tougher approach is a good thing. But if that is to be, it must be applied equally, to all the electronic media.

How would “A Current Affair”, “Today Tonight”, the Channel 7 News, John Laws and Alan Jones fare under the standards now adopted by the ABA?

5. Tied or “Targeted” Funding.
This is another favourite, used by previous governments and extended creatively by the Coalition, especially as it relates to broadcasting. Desperate for funding the ABC Board has to some degree gone along with this, with the result that ABC independence is being eaten away at the edges.

6. Outright abolition of the ABC
It is unlikely that the government would try this on, even though it would be possible with Senate control. However that has not prevented right wing ideologues, and some technological determinists, advocating this approach.
In discussions with the Friends of the ABC, former shadow communications minister Lindsay Tanner has suggested that the advent of digital television, and a multi-channel environment, will be a threat to the survival of the ABC. Similar warnings have been made by Elizabeth Jacka. While both Tanner and Jacka have generally been supportive of the ABC, they have warned that technical developments might make public service broadcasting obsolete.
For more than ten years now, it has been argued that the multi-channel environment (the Internet, Pay TV and more recently Digital TV) has made public service broadcasting redundant. The main rationales for public broadcasting, it is claimed, were twofold. First it maintained public control over a scarce resource and second, that public broadcasting should provide those programs that were socially beneficial, but unprofitable for commercial broadcasters.
The argument goes on that with the rise of cable, satellite and digital broadcasting, not to mention the Internet, the scarcity argument no longer holds water. Moreover when people can access hundred of channels on their televisions or radios, the idea that the state should subsidise certain forms of broadcasting is wasteful middle class welfare. In western societies at least, if any meaningful sector of the population wants a service, the market will provide.
This issue is discussed further at http://www.friendsoftheabc.org/nothin.pdf It is difficult to predict the future. Perhaps the predictions of the technological determinists will come true. On the other hand perhaps the ABC, like the book and the cinema, whose demise has also been predicted many times, will survive.
Only time will settle this argument

7. Abolishing the Staff Elected Director
The Fraser government did this and the Hawke government reinstated the position. If the position were taken away this time, it may be much harder to have it reinstated in the future.

8. Divide and Rule I – Internal Rivalries

This has been a standard strategy for rulers. Today the ABC is very divided internally. That weakens the ABC, and then leads to even more division.
Frantz Fanon commented on the tendency for oppressed peoples in colonial societies to fight one another, rather than their oppressors. He put this down primarily to the subjugation of their languages and their cultures. If their languages and cultures were worthless, then so were their compatriots. This rings true to me, but perhaps there is more to the tendency for the slaves to target their fellow slaves, rather than the slave owners.

We see a similar phenomenon in the ABC. TV staff attack radio staff. Radio staff attack the Director of Radio, Sue Howard, because they say that she is not aggressive enough in fighting the Director of Television, Sandra Levy. Staff in Radio National say that local radio is worthless, and is aping the commercials. Staff in local radio say that Radio National is overstaffed and has too few listeners. Both Radio and TV staff attack the News Division, which they say has been protected from the cutbacks. Meanwhile the recently established New Media division complains that the old media have taken most of the budget, and won’t allow creative new technologies to develop. The staff blame management and the board.

On a regular basis these attacks and counter attacks find their way into the press. It gives a very damaging, and distorted, picture of the ABC as a whole.

Yet the ABC is one of the world’s best broadcasters. It manages extraordinarily well given its funding. In terms of quality of output, in terms of value for money, in terms of both the comprehensiveness and distinctiveness of its programs, it compares favourably both to its commercial domestic competition and to public service broadcasters overseas. This could not have been done with incompetent management, a hidebound and inefficient corporate structure, and poor staff.
I think there is a different reason for ABC staff and managers, when they feel threatened, turning on one another. A reason not connected to culture and language, but still connected to feelings of oppression.
If you can’t strike out at the real enemy, who might be the government, or the commercial media, or the Institute of Public Affairs, because they are out of reach, then you have to find someone closer to hand. It might be the boss. If you are in a “BAPH” state it might be the terrible people at Head Office. If you work in TV it might be radio.

(1) Illawarra Mercury, 20 November, 2000
(2) The Age, 21 April 2001
(3) The Australian, 1 November 2000

Darce Cassidy, April, 2005