AM Presenter Linda Mottram, reporter John Shovelan and News Executive Max Uechtritz again came in for flack about bias this week in The Senate. Queensland Senator SANTORO raised a series of issues about the ABC, including whether the Australian Military should be labeled ‘Our Troops’ in ABC reports and the continuing topic of bias.

Here is part of what he said:

As I have stated in this place previously, the ABC is a
vital element in our nation’s broadcasting… [It’s] taxpayer status imposes on the ABC a
duty to be independent. But it imposes another duty,
part of the first but arguably even more important: it
must be balanced, non-partisan and accountable…

There is here an issue that I have raised before and
will raise again until it is fully resolved. In my view it
is completely unacceptable that a policy remains in
place under which ABC news and current affairs staff
are prohibited from referring to Australia’s service men
and women as ‘our troops’.

In my view Australians are
rightly and unashamedly proud of Australia’s service
men and women, who accept the dangers of going in
harm’s way for the sake of defending our country and
our values. I believe that is the view of the vast majority
of Australians too. Our troops are our sons and
daughters, our brothers and sisters, our husbands and
wives. It is fit and proper that our national broadcaster
should refer to them as ‘our troops’ because we are
proud of them and grateful for what they do.

The ABC refuses to accept this. It explicitly prohibits
Australian service men and women from being described
in the national broadcaster’s news and current
affairs programs as ‘our troops’. This is an insult to the
Australian Defence Force and all those who serve in
the three armed services. But the greatest damage it
does is to the ABC, for it highlights a narrowmindedness,
a lack of generosity of spirit, a detachment
from the perceptions and understanding of ordinary
Australians that can only undermine the ABC and
impede it from achieving its mission.

I have called
several times for this policy that prevents Australian
service men and women from being referred to as ‘our
troops’ to be revoked. I now call for it again…

Resolving that matter is, however, merely a first
step. It is also essential that the ABC take seriously the
issues of bias that I have raised before and that remain
pressing. I am deeply disappointed by the dismissive
way in which the ABC’s managing director responded
to the findings of the ABC’s Independent Complaints
Review Panel review of the complaints brought by
Senator Alston. I believe there are many flaws in the
panel’s review. It plainly sought to set the bar so high
that only the most blatant instances of prejudice would
be counted as amounting to impropriety…

In August I wrote to Mr Balding following the ABC’s written responses to
questions placed on notice at the estimates hearing in
May. Mr Balding wrote back to me last month and several
things he said in that correspondence were interesting.
But there was one area in particular where I felt
he demonstrated the clear fact that, unless change is
forced upon it, the ABC will remain a virtual law unto
itself in matters of bias and lack of balance.

Responding to my question about why it should be
that leftist—or ‘politically acceptable’ organisations—
were not identified as promoting that particular class of
political view when being used as talent by the ABC
when right-wing think-tanks were thus identified, he
said this:

Your comments … appear to suggest that the ABC should
label organisations when reporting their comments. The
ABC’s role is to offer a broad range of views without itself
making value judgments about the political or other perspective
that a group represents.

Of course, if only the ABC would do that—just that—
without the subliminal subtext, then everything would
be fine. Mr Balding went on to say:

While I appreciate the point you are making, I believe that if
the ABC were to ‘label’ groups as you have suggested, we
could rightly be accused of over-simplification and stereotyping.…

What is at issue is the use by individuals of a taxpayer
funded service as a platform for expressing their
own prejudices under the pretence of reporting on current
affairs. This is an abuse of public moneys. It is
completely at odds with the purpose for which these
individuals were hired and it is inconsistent with the
responsibilities they have been given. It ought to be
completely unacceptable, first and foremost, to the
management of the ABC.

I find it incomprehensible
that those individuals who have been found to so abuse
their office should simply be allowed to continue as if
nothing had happened. It is completely unacceptable
that the presenter of AM, Linda Mottram, who has displayed
what even the panel describes as ‘serious bias’, should escape censure. It does nothing to convince the
community—the community that funds the ABC—that
the national broadcaster is serious about balance, accountability
and professionalism.

There are other individuals who also, in my view,
deserve censure. One of them is John Shovelan, whom
the independent complaints panel found had basically
indulged his personal penchant for bad-mouthing the
American President from his post in Washington. Another
is the head of news and current affairs, Max
Uechtritz, who is still stoutly defended by managing
director Russell Balding over his highly questionable
judgment in conference remarks overseas.