Whose ABC?

It’s their ABC according to conservative punters, politicians and commentators. The suggestion is that the ABC is become just another Australian media outlet that’s sympathetic to the progressive cause, promoting ALP politicians and policies over those of the Coalition Government, that it's not supportive of the Government or the 'home team'.

It's a matter of perspective. Any consumer of Murdoch’s News Corporation and the majority of Sky News Australia’s offerings would have to turn their heads to the left to see the ABC, yet that doesn’t mean that the ABC is a lefty-socialist mouthpiece, as conservatives would have us believe. According to the Political Compass, both the ALP and Liberal well to the right of the centre line, and I'd suggest that they've both edged ever further to the horizon in the seven months since then.

An analysis of guests on the ABC’s two flagship panel shows, Q&A and Insiders shows where those two shows line up on the issue of bias. The result is that each show is fairly well balanced, with Insiders slightly favouring the right, and Q&A slightly favouring the left.

Insiders has slid a little to the left, though. In earlier years, regular Insiders guests included Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman, both hard-line conservative climate-change-denying commentators who write their opinion pieces for News Corporation. Mr Bolt has his own show on Network Ten, and Mr Akerman has simply disappeared from television. For the sake of simplicity, anyone who regularly writes for the Murdoch papers has been placed in the conservative column.

With Q&A in particular, it can be difficult to categorise the political leanings of every guest, as they aren’t all known as politicians or political commentators: guests include comedians and musicians, business leaders and theologians. Those guests have not been categorised, except in blatant cases like Billy Bragg. Palmer United Party representatives have been tagged as conservative, despite being further left than the ALP. 

It’s also unfair to criticise Q&A for being slightly more progressive; Prime Minister Tony Abbott has an open invitation to appear on Q&A, but has refused to appear on the show for several years. 

To give any perceived bias inherent within these ABC programmes some context, the most direct comparison is with another current affairs chat show: Sky News Australia’s evening chat show, PM Live. The show’s regular guests are predominantly conservative commentators and former Liberal politicians. The single former-ALP politician who was a regular panellist was Mark Latham, and he has not appeared on the programme since his on-air shout-athon with Chris Kenny.

So in comparison to PM Live, the ABC panel shows have a higher proportion of left-leaning guests. That's only part of the story, though. The ABC shows are far more balanced and closer to the centre, as required by its charter. It is, in fact, Our ABC.

Post Script: No analysis of Andrew Bolt's guests was possible, as the Network Ten website now automatically redirects to www.tenplay.com.au, which is great for watching past programmes, but useless for readers like me. More dumbing down, courtesy of Ten?

Take it as a Comment

What is the purpose of a public debate if it is not to expose the audience to different perspectives on the same issue, and to encourage them to consider their own opinion from different angles? The ABC’s QandA exists for that purpose, and a noble purpose it is.

The added layer that supports the success of QandA is Twitter. Broadcast live, QandA includes tweets from television audience members, displayed on screen, allowing QandA to boast of it’s panel of experts, politicians and celebrities, the studio audience, and the television audience, all with the ability to influence the show in real time. In fact, tweeters who have a tweet displayed on screen during the show are heroes for considerably longer than the 15 seconds or so that the tweet is on the screen. They can even advertise their success with a range of QandA T-Shirts. Not just a television show for political wonks, QandA is a multi-platform cultural landmark.

What about the panellists who appear on programmes like QandA? Are they there to help viewers to expand their minds and raise the level of debate around the water cooler in the office tomorrow? Of course not. With the exception of a few pop stars and comedians who should never have been anywhere closer to the QandA panel than the audience seats, QandA panellists have political and social agendas. They are there to discuss their subjects, represent their cause and neutralise any opposing views, regardless of the carefully selected and worded questions asked by the audience members.

In a live television environment where instant feedback is encouraged and rewarded, it’s inevitable that a range of responses will be received. Some personalities are always going to attract an audience and polarise it; others are less sensational.

Why is anyone surprised then, when a guest from the conservative group, href="http://www.ipa.org.au/">The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) displays conservative views, as James Paterson did on this week’s QandA, and receives a barrage of negative response?

Writing for right wing magazine The Spectator, James Paterson isn't surprised. He revels in it, responding with glee at the number of “abusive tweets from engaged lefties” he receives. For James, it’s a matter of pride that he’s been able to stir up a certain level of consternation, annoy specific tweeters into responding, and provoke groans of despair from the studio audience. He writes:

We move on to the mining tax, and a self-described lifetime Labor voter complains to Chris Evans that the Gillard government hasn't hit the mining industry hard enough, to the delight of the studio audience. In his answer, Evans suggests that the applause is a good indication of changing community sentiment and perhaps the government should look at reforming the tax to collect more revenue. I can't resist the opportunity, and point out that if the ALP really thinks a QandA audience is a representative sample of the Australian community, no wonder they are in such bad shape. It wins me no friends in the audience, who loudly groan. But at least Sinclair Davidson at the excellent blog Catallaxy Files appreciates it - he writes that it was my best comment all night, and Andrew Bolt agrees on his blog.

Note Mr Paterson’s mocking tone when considering that the QandA audience might be representative of the Australian community. I’m pretty sure that it would be impossible for the Australian community to be represented accurately by an audience of a couple of hundred people, but I do know that the political self-identification of the audience members for this week’s QandA programme was ALP 36%, Coalition 41% and Greens 14% - with 9% in the Undecided/Secretive/Confused bucket. To my amateur eye, that does look a bit skewed towards the left, yet it’s not a whitewash.

Even if all of the Greens support Labor, and the entire noncommittal 9% favoured the right, that would put the audience at even-stevens. So those groans that Mr Paterson heard from time to time during the programme were probably less than half the audience. Whether he likes it or not, the IPA, the Coalition, the right in general is rarely a minority. Playing underdog at the mercy of the Big Bad ABC simply doesn’t make sense.

Another groan was heard when host Tony Jones announced that next week’s programme will include a guest from the Centre for Public Christianity.

“It's as if having a Christian on the ABC is something to be outraged about.” A groan does not signify outrage, Mr Paterson. Even a loud groan by half the people in a room cannot be considered a sign of horror or indignation. It’s a groan, an involuntary noise that expresses derision, disdain, or disappointment. For a communications director, the choice of words veers towards hyperbole...and yes, I can pronounce it too.
Pedantry aside, it’s absurd to think that the ABC or its audience has an issue with putting Christians on air. Songs of Praise has been on air since Adam was a boy, and Compass, with Geraldine Doogue is as old as Methuselah. Moreover, the ABC has been responsible for such brilliant television as Brides of Christ and The Abbey.

Mr Paterson seens particularly unhappy – apparently on behalf of the regular QandA audience – at QandA’s regular coverage of political process stories rather than issues. This surprised me, yet  it illuminates part of the reason why Mr Paterson and his IPA are so far away from reality: the QandA audience is genuinely interested in process stories, particularly when they are related to how the Leader of the Opposition may act if he is elected Prime Minister in September. I believe Tony Abbott's inability to handle the media is a major election issue all by itself. Mr Paterson disagrees:

“I can't think of a less important topic to discuss than the Opposition Leader's media appearance schedule and the panellists' theories of what sort of media management tactics his team are running, so I say so. Of course, Corrine Grant believes this is a deadly serious matter of national concern. And nobody mentions the failure of every Gillard government minister bar Anthony Albanese to appear on The Bolt Report on Ten.”

Anyway, what else is there to discuss? The only Coalition policies we know about are the ones that are leaked.
Corrine Grant understands a helluva lot more about media than Mr Paterson does. Australians – even those on the right – might have a problem with a Prime Minister who goes out of his way to avoid talking to the media. That Tony Abbott has not appeared on QandA in a while is entirely Tony Abbott’s decision – just as choosing to not appear on The Bolt Report is the choice of many ALP figures.

It should probably be noted here that except for a couple of episodes, The Bolt Report rates last in its timeslots: in order to maintain an audience in the mid 200,000s, Channel Ten screens the programme twice on Sundays.

QandA is watched by around three times as many people as The Bolt Report, and frankly, Mr Bolt has such a tainted reputation that I’d hesitate to recommend that any politican of any side appear on his show.

The biggest question of all for Mr Paterson is this: Did he kick any goals for his team? Did he change any minds, win any votes for the coalition or attract any new members for the IPA? He speaks of having personal key performance indicators for his QandA appearances. He isn’t satisfied unless he’s getting hostile tweets, particularly from Marieke Hardy, although I’m sure there are others whose antagonism he values as much.

And that’s pretty damned childish. James Paterson is on QandA to do a job for his employer, to promote his organisation and their values. Pissing off your opponents is no reason to be proud - unless you’re trying to cause a riot at nap time by stirring up the other three year olds into making a noise.

I’m pleased for him that he finds satisfaction and fun in such a pointless activity. We all need to enjoy our work.

Meanwhile, if Mr Paterson is tempted to respond to this post, he's welcome to do that. My interest has never been in provoking a response from the right.

Talking Back

Cameron Edwards is a foolish young man.

Every Monday night during the ABC’s tweet-back programme Q&A, tweeters interested in politics warm up their smartphones, tablets and laptops, and tweet their responses to the various partisan statements made by the members of the Q&A panel. It’s a rowdy, undisciplined affair with views ranging from the literal middle ground all the way through to the extremes, and surprisingly, it’s usually well-informed, articulate and oftentimes, hilarious.

Iconic Q&A moments were amplified to greatness within the twittersphere: GetUp’s Simon Sheikh fainted on air, an audience member through a shoe at John Howard, Julie Bishop tried to kill a cameraman with her trademark stare, Germaine Greer became obsessed with the Prime Minister’s wardrobe choices. These are one-off, unscripted examples of what can happen on live television, with an equally live “participating” via social media.

Cameron Edward's series of offensive tweets

Last night’s Q&A sparked another twitterstorm, but this time, it had little to do with what was on the television screen and everything to do with what was on the twitterscreen itself. One viewer, a young engineering student at UNSW, chose to tweet a series of incredibly rude tweets addressed to Senator Penny Wong, who had been on the Q&A panel last night.

The viewer was Cameron Edwards, an insulter in the mould of an Alan Jones or Kyle Sandilands. With expertise rarely seen outside Sydney commercial radio, Cameron Edwards succeeded in tweeting a stream of insults directed at Senator Wong’s gender, ethnicity and sexual preference.

An hour or so later, after hundreds of people pointed out the error of his ways and forwarded screen shots of the worst of his tweets to UNSW, a rather embarrassed Cameron Edwards deleted some of the offending tweets, protected his twitter account (so that others cannot get access to his older tweets) and apologised. Today, he has emailed a personal apology to Senator Wong.

Two remarkable events happened here. Firstly, the deluge of disgust at Cameron Edward’s tweet was not organised in any away or affiliated with any group. In fact, the disgust was purely at Cameron Edward’s tweets. It was not arguing the substance of his tweets or supporting Senator Wong; it was just disgust and disbelief that anyone could be so stupid as to tweet those sentiments even once, much less multiple times and using such unacceptable language.

The second remarkable thing was that Cameron Edwards has ‘manned up’, and apologised, more than once. In fairness, his apologies on twitter last night and today lacked gravitas, but that may be nothing more than a reflection of the writer, and his lack of maturity. The apologies sound far more like the embarrassed backpedalling of a boy who has realised that he’s in trouble and he can’t lie his way out of it. I haven’t seen his emailed apology to Ms Wong.

Having said that, this is what is possible. This is why movements like Destroy The Joint exist. Last night, a group of people who are unconnected to each other, except by twitter, used their collective influence to state clearly that abuse is not acceptable in our society. It’s the same theme as White Ribbon Day, the Royal Commission into abuse of children in care, Prime Minister’s Gillard’s speech slamming misogyny, Destroy the Joint and Reclaim the Night. It’s the New Revolutionaries, starting to influence the way society develops.

And no, Cameron – booze isn’t an excuse. If you can’t handle yourself drunk, don’t drink so much. You took responsibility for your offensive tweets; now take responsibility for the sentiment behind them.

Then there is the other half of my night on twitter. A young psychologist named Holly made a poor joke about fat people and cake. She was challenged about whether the joke was appropriate by blogger and commentator Chrys Stevenson. What happened next was like peeling an onion. Holly sounded so superior and so shallow when she eventually confirmed on twitter that she does not accept that there is a psychological element in the causes of obesity. For a psychologist, that’s a fairly naïve approach.

I can’t imagine that many people set out to be obese. I know that I’d be so much happier and healthier if I lost about 40kg. I haven't been able to do that yet. But I am what I am – imperfect - and being fat doesn’t give anyone the right to treat me any differently to how they would treat me if I was a size 10.

The battle with Holly is lost; we’ll get her next time, and if we don’t, it’ll be the time after that.

But we won the battle with Cameron Edwards. His apology may not be the most sincere apology, but I suspect that he has learned a lesson. I hope he's learned that the opinions he expressed and the language he used are not acceptable.

It’s not about point-scoring or popularity or one-upmanship. Nor is it just bad behaviour from yobs; these people are educated, articulate young people who should know better. So why do we engage with people like Cameron Edwards of Holly-the-Psychology-Graduate or Tony Abbott or Alan Jones?

Because as individuals, we are troubled by what we see, and our opinion matters too.

Vexed & Vacuous

It is a truth universally acknowledged that there are ways to behave in society. I'm not talking about Jane Austen-esque manners, the bonneted verbal bouts of pride, prejudice, sense and stupidity of 200 years ago. This is 2012, and there are standards, albeit somewhat more flexible.

Last night on QandA, GetUp! Director Simon Sheikh passed out on television. 

Immediately after the initial wave of shock and sympathy, viewers re-examined the footage and saw Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Sophie Mirrabella, who was seated beside Mr Sheikh, lean away from the slumped man beside her. In contrast, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet, who was seated one seat further away, went to Mr Sheikh's aid. 

Twitter went wild with accusations that Ms Mirrabella's failure to act is an indication of her true character, and proof that she is an unfit representative. Certainly the vision is damning, made worse by Mr Combet's actions.

But several heartbeats later, the second wave of tweets commenced. How dare anyone criticise Ms Mirrabella for her underwhelming reaction? She was shocked. No-one knows how they'd react in a similar situation. Even GetUp! asked, via Twitter, that critics hold their fire.

In Austen's time, Ms Mirrabella's shocked reaction would have been perfectly acceptable. I can see  Miss Jane Bennet, the very model of all that is good and decent, reacting in a very similar way. Still, some critics are determined to attack Ms Mirrabella for not being more like the steady, useful (if entirely without accomplishment) Mary Bennet or the pragmatic Charlotte Lucas. 

Lecturer and writer Lauren Rosewarne suggested that criticism of Ms Mirrabella is because her reaction didn't include visible signs of feminine emotion. Ms Rosewarne wrote:

While I’ve not yet stumbled upon it myself, apparently there’s a handbook out there for women with some very precise shoulds when it comes to conveying emotions.

There's no book and this isn't 1815. We talk about these issues, laugh with friends, discuss over reheated leftovers at lunch, debate in one sentence bursts on Twitter. Should we wear ugg boots to Westfield? Pyjamas to the corner shop after 9pm? Ask guests to pay their own way at parties held at restaurants? Display tattoos at work? Slap other people's kids? Wear tights as pants? Drink Shandies? Lie about your age? Talk down the economy? Sing badly on tellie? Make fat jokes? 

Different people have different interpretations of what is appropriate behaviour in different situations, and gender is not always an issue. Yes, double standards do exist, yet I simply don't accept that this issue is one of double standards. There's no gender bias, just failure to align with Ms Rosewarne's expectation of how the Twittersphere should react to a surprising response to someone else's misfortune.

Convoluted, isn't it?

Put simply, Ms Rosewarne is defending Ms Mirrabella against criticism aimed at her failure to emote in an identifiably feminine way. My recollection of the Twitter stream is that the criticism was generated by the failure to act, the hostile body language and expression. I don't recall a single tweet suggesting that weeping or wailing would help. No hand-wringing displays were requested.

But I'm giving Ms Mirrabella a pass, despite her apparent impotence in last night's QandA emergency, if only because her very presence was largely as irrelevant as her gender during Mr Sheikh's collapse.

If anything, Ms Rosewarne's story in The Conversation seems to suggest that she might be the one with unrealistic expectations of human behaviour. We expected everyone on the panel to have the same reaction, the same desire to help, regardless of gender.

Because double standards are far less common than they were in 1815, and women are capable of being useful as well as decorative.


With apologies to those not familiar with Austen's P&P 

Serene and Unruffled

"A female politician is expected to look serene and unruffled," says Professor Germaine Greer.


It should come as no surprise to anyone that Germaine Greer, Godmother of Australian Feminism, has opinions on fashion. She is an inspiration, a walking, talking collection of opinions about women and literature and society and culture. 


Professor Greer is a bona fide Living National Treasure and occasional national embarrassment. No one ever questions Dr Greer's intellect, yet her sanity, even her judgment, are questioned with increasing regularity. Who could have predicted that this extraordinary woman whose theories were shocking us four decades ago is still capable of making headlines by saying "vagina" out loud on tellie? Who would dared to have thought otherwise?

So what has captured her imagination this time? The inadequate number of vaginas in parliament? The revenge that nature exacted on Steve Irwin? The subordination of the feminist id as displayed by the voluntary cramming of boobs into bras?


Not this time. This time around, it's the Australian Prime Minister's preference for those boxy white jackets that make Julia's arse (Germaine's word, not mine) look big. In fact, the issue was first aired by Professor Greer on ABC1's talk-n-tweet fest, QandA, back in mid-March. 


Reaction ranged from a storm of  'don't be mean' tweets fighting the inevitable "so is her nose/earlobes/salary" responses, to questions about why appearance is important, to Tony Abbott agreeing with Greer's assessment of Ms Gillard's style choice and bum size: 'I know, I know, I know, . . . Germaine Greer was right on that subject,'he said.  


Just hours later, Tony Abbott was shifting his charity cycle into reverse: ''It was an off-the-cuff response to an observation from a member of the public. I shouldn't have said it and I regret it,'' Mr Abbott said. At least he admitted his mistake, although it won't help his image problem with women. 


And now, just to be absolutely sure that we're aware of her opinion on the Prime Minister's jackets, Professor Greer wrote an opinion piece in the Fashion section of the Fairfax press. Note the absence of arse-size references. This is serious business. 

Julia Gillard isn't a clothes horse. She's a hard-working professional politician, but she isn't allowed to look like one. Hence the dreaded jackets. Underneath are her workclothes, the same black pants and black top she once would have worn under her gown for court appearances. The jackets are intended to brighten up her image, each one fresh out of the box. Instead she looks as if she's wearing clothes that don't belong to her, like an organ-grinder's monkey.

What Professor Greer hasn't included in her article is why she objects to Julia Gillard's jackets, or what she thinks our hardworking Prime Minister should be wearing in place of the jackets.


 Let's just get one thing out of the way before we move on: Julia Gillard's jackets don't fit, and do emphasise the size of her bum. For the record, her bum is sizeable, but not as abundant as mine. 


The black pants and top seem to have found approval as a base uniform - it also seems to be Professor Greer's current uniform - but then what? For more formal occasions, meetings with dignitaries, official receptions, black pants and top are not formal enough...so we're back to looking at jackets. Or for a more feminine image, a nice frilly blouse and a jacket. Add some bling for a cocktail party? Hell, let's do a Cosmo fashion spread on the versatility and virtues of black pants, tops and jackets?

I think Australians are big enough to cope with the sight of their female Prime Minister in shirt-sleeves.

Of course Australians are okay with our PM appearing in shirt-sleeves, when it's appropriate. Former Queensland Premier was praised from On High for donning jeans and boots to tour natural disaster areas. (It's always a better look than Tony Abbott's assorted Lycra garments.) Yes, I accept that forcing businesswomen into suits is forcing women to mimic accepted male business attire...but what's the real issue here: the gender mimicry, the fact that the jackets don't fit, or the fact that jackets are expected as part of the Prime Ministerial wardrobe?


Answer D: None of the Above. Ask Australians why they are deserting the Labor Party and Julia Gillard, and fashion won't be in the top twenty answers. No-one cares or remembers what Julia Gillard was wearing when she replaced Kevin Rudd as PM, when she announced the carbon tax, when she held the press conference just last week to distance herself from Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson. 


Take a look at Australia in 2012. A makeover is not going to be enough to make a dent in the woes of the ALP, and nor should it. Throwing a Greer-fuelled spotlight on the PM's wardrobe choices is a distraction that is markedly at odds with the feminist sensibilities of the twenty-first century. What happened to substance trumping style?


Professor Greer has never wanted to be an equalist. She is a feminist who wants us to embrace our femininity, rather than constantly striving to be equal to men. Regrettably, history may have passed her by.  Rightly or wrongly, our first female Prime Minister has embraced her personal style, ill-fitting, unflattering jackets included, and that's that. 


Yet Professor Greer thinks Julia Gillard isn't allowed to look like a hardworking politician? Bollocks. Prime Minister Gillard is a hardworking politician who looks like Prime Minister Gillard, hardworking politician, and if that doesn't coincide with Professor Greer's idea of what a hardworking politician should look like, I respectfully suggest that the Professor adjusts her perception to meet reality.

Dress and conduct in the Chamber


While the standard of dress in the Chamber is a matter for the individual judgment of each Member, 1 the ultimate discretion rests with the Speaker. In 1983 Speaker Jenkins stated that his rule in the application of this discretion was ‘neatness, cleanliness and decency’. 2 In a statement to the House in 1999, Speaker Andrew noted that Members had traditionally chosen to dress in a formal manner similar to that generally accepted in business and professional circles, and that this was entirely appropriate. It was widely accepted throughout the community that the standards should involve good trousers, a jacket, collar and tie for men and a similar standard of formality for women. These standards applied equally to staff occupying the advisers boxes, members of the press gallery and guests in the distinguished visitors gallery. The Speaker said he did not propose to apply this standard rigidly. For example, it would be acceptable for Members to remove jackets if the air-conditioning failed, and it was accepted practice that Members hurrying to attend a division or quorum might arrive without a jacket. However, they should leave the Chamber at the conclusion of the count. 3 In earlier years it was held that a Member was not permitted to remove his jacket in the Chamber. 4 In 1977 the Speaker indicated that it was acceptable for Members to wear tailored ‘safari’ suits without a tie. 5 Members have been permitted to wear hats in the Chamber but not while entering or leaving 6 or while speaking. 7 Clothes with printed slogans are not generally acceptable in the Chamber, and Members so attired have been warned by the Chair to dress more appropriately.