The new Managing Director of the ABC Mark Scott got a grilling this week in his first Senate Estimates hearing because Senators thought he didn’t bring enough executives to answer questions, and that his the new editorial policies would result in installation of what Senators dubbed a ‘Chief Censor’.

A number of farcical exchanges, mostly initiated by Senator Conroy to make his point about the chief censor, consisted of sparring along the lines of:

Mr Scott: What we are talking about around this are matters of contention or public debate. I do not believe a program on John Curtin triggers matters of contention or public debate.

Senator CONROY: Does the censor agree?

Mr Scott: We do not have a chief censor.

Senator CONROY: Not yet. ….

Angry Senators constantly reminded the new MD that he should have brought other operational executives, particularly the Director of News and Current Affairs John Cameron, so that they could help him answer questions about editorial matters. Mark Scott dismissed those suggestions, saying that, as editor in chief, he was the top executive responsible for those matters. So the Senators pushed and pushed to test just how much he knew. Many questions were put on notice for a leter response, much to the annoyance of the Senators.

In his opening remarks to the committee, Mark Scott acknowledged the ABC “receives a great deal of public money,” close to $800 million per annum, saying “we do a great deal for the public with it.” The ABC funds five radio networks, two domestic television networks, Radio Australia, the Australia Network, ABC Online and digital radio.

Since starting in the job almost four months ago Scott has visited ABC operations in most parts of Australia and “talked to hundreds of ABC staff.” He told Senators, “there is a
very strong bond between the Australian public and the ABC; it is a bond that seems to get stronger the further
away you move from the capital cities.”

As a former newspaper editor, Mark Scott says he is acutely aware of the need to have detailed editorial checking processes for stories. Acknowledging the much faster speed of the radio medium compared with newspapers, which have 24 hours to turn around most stories, Scott says the risks of getting something wrong are much greater on radio than newspapers, and thinks the corporation’s new editorial guidelines will make all staff more aware of checking their facts and balancing opposing points of view.

Scott told the Senate committee: “We have 65 live microphones open each morning on ABC radio right across Australia. We are getting more local as other media companies are retreating to the cities and syndicating… the editorial policies provide greater emphasis on the need for the ABC to be impartial, not only in our news and current affairs output but also in our topical and factual and opinion content. That means presenting a range of perspectives on matters of contention and public debate. This is fundamentally about maintaining and enhancing the ABC’s reputation for fairness, accuracy, balance and objectivity.”

Scott discussed in some detail how the new policies would affect programming staff:

“I will give you some examples of this. The previous policies suggested that all our news and current affairs work came out of the News and Current Affairs Division of the ABC. Clearly, there is other programming coming out of other divisions that covers news and current affairs—programming that comes out on local radio, for example.

“Part of John Faine’s program would be news and current affairs. In our new editorial
policies, we needed to think in terms of how the listener perceives it and how the viewer perceives it rather than how we create it. So the guidelines for news and current affairs cover news and current affairs regardless of which division creates that content within the ABC… These editorial policies are designed to assist program makers and those journalists who are involved in making content to deliver content that we believe to be fair, impartial and balanced at the ABC over time.”

This did not go unchallenged by Senators, who took Scott to task on many areas of this new policy. One of the topics of contention was whether the new guidelines would make the ABC more timid in its reporting:

Senator CONROY: Mr Scott, you have likened the new director’s position to that of a financial or risk auditor within a major company. Do you think that there is a danger that you will create a very risk-averse culture within the ABC?

Mr Scott: I hope not. In fact, in my comments to the staff, my speech and my subsequent media
interviews, I went out of my way to suggest that really I am encouraging journalists to create great journalism,
to be bold and to, as I said, shine the light in the dark places. I appreciate that great journalism will upset
people. So not for a moment in creating and developing these policies are we trying to make the ABC benign
or innocuous or pull its punches. What we want to do is to make sure we have the high standards of good
journalism—that fairness, impartiality and balance—that you really need in order to create journalism of the
highest standards. But I fully expect that that terrific legacy of investigative journalism that exists at the ABC
and our ability to ask tough, robust questions will remain under these policies. That is our intent.

Following up, Senator Conroy returned to his chosen sport for the day of Managing Director and ‘chief censor’ bashing:

Senator CONROY: The chief censor, who is overseeing them, is a person who reports only to you.

Mr Scott—You said they were being implemented in secret. That is absolutely untrue…

Senator CONROY: He will have a daily role which will not be open to public scrutiny.

Mr Scott: Senator, I am afraid you have misunderstood. The policies are being implemented by the ABC staff. The policies have never had more scrutiny. The policies have never been more open. To suggest the policies are being implemented in secret is absolutely untrue. There will be an auditing process of these policies that takes place, but that is not the implementation of these policies.

Senator CONROY: An expert on audit governance knows that auditors are required to turn up at annual
general meetings and ask questions from shareholders. That is corporate law now. You may not have kept up
with that one. Will you give a commitment to bring your auditor along so that taxpayers, including us, can ask
your chief censor questions?

Mr Scott: My understanding of this meeting is that it is not an AGM.

Senator CONROY: You do not hold an AGM, do you? Consider this your AGM: you are reporting to
parliament.

Mr Scott: I note your views, Senator, and I will reflect on them.

On the question of whether the new editorial policies will turn the ABC into a ‘soapbox for nutters’ Mark Scott said editorial judgements on content will be made on “principal relevant viewpoint.” Norman Swan and the Health Report team for instance, would “not be narrowly constrained in the way they report on evidence based medicine in the Health Report, but we are saying that principal relevant viewpoints on matters of contention or public debate will be heard on the platform over time.”

Senator Fierravanti-Wells also focused on Radio, which she said has been “a
source of ongoing problems and complaints.” Rradio presenters singled out for criticism included Sarah McDonald and Virginia Trioli:

“Sarah McDonald wrongly broadcast that Hicks had to not been charged and that the Taliban in Afghanistan was a government recognised by the US and Australia. Things like Virginia Trioli’s guest making some comment about David Hicks not being charged and she does not correct him. Things like Barry Cassidy making comparisons between Bob Hawke’s comments in 1990 that no child would live in poverty with a similar statement made by Kim Beazley. Sarah McDonald makes the comment that ‘Bob Hawke lived to regret that comment, let’s hope Kim Beazley doesn’t.’ Why is it of such concern to an ABC broadcaster whether or not the Labor leader comes to regret one of his comments?
This is where my concerns are.”