First, here’s the rumour doing the rounds of ABC Radio:
Is ABC supremo Mark Scott happy with the answers he’s getting from his own management team about plans to dump the Religion Report from the Radio National schedule?
If what we’re told is true, he has good reason to be at the very least confused but more likely mightily p-ssed off.
You will remember that the Religion Report‘s host, Stephen Crittenden, was suspended from duty after he revealed to his audience that management was taking the axe to his program and a bunch of other specialist weekly reports on RN. The ABC has received a barrage of angry emails over Crittenden’s suspension and Mark Scott faced tough questions about the matter when he appeared at a Senate estimates hearing last week. It was an unwelcome distraction as Scott wanted to use the occasion to make a pitch for more money in the lead up to Canberra’s triennial review of Aunty’s funding.
The word is that when Scott started making his own inquiries about the Radio National brouhaha, he was told by head of Radio Sue Howard that she knew nothing about plans to axe the Religion Report. If she did indeed say that, it would have surprised a lot of people as it would have been highly unusual for her not to have been consulted about such a significant programming decision.
After speaking to Howard, Scott is said to have made further inquiries down the line, and this is where the story gets interesting. We’re told that an executive in Radio National showed Scott documentary evidence of exactly who knew what and when. We don’t know if Scott has since discussed that evidence with Sue Howard but if he has it would have been a gripping experience to be a fly on the wall.
Well that’s the rumour. the truth is probably a little less dramatic.
First it’s interesting to note that Sue Howard has never denied that she knew about the planned cuts and that would make sense because we’re clear that she had long meetings with the Radio National management team back in August to discuss the schedule for 2009 when the cuts were talked about at length. It appears for some inexplicable reason that Howard failed to mention the full extent of the cuts when she had a separate meeting with Scott some time later so that when Crittenden went live to air with the news, Scott had not been informed.
To say that he was p-ssed off would be an understatement. But to suggest that Howard has told a fib to Scott, either before or after the news became public, is wrong.
Are you an ABC Insider? Crikey is keen to hear any mumbles from within the corporation.
All confidences respected. Submit an anonymous tip to Crikey here.
Further to my earlier post and slightly off topic but still connected to this theme, how on earth did the current website design for ABC Local Radio attain approval from ANYBODY? What was Sue Howard’s role in this mess? I have surveyed hundreds of corporate and other media sites from around the world and I am hard pressed to come up with a site as badly designed or as user unfriendly as this hotch-potch. Was there a useability trial? If so, what were the results? Every time I attempt to access any content on the ABC Local Radio site, I give up in frustration, defeated from easily and quickly finding the most basic information. It is all flash and spin but with no real attentiveness to how users actually navigate media sites. What happened? How did the process of design fail so miserably? Who is ultimately responsible? What has stopped a remediation of this clearly inadequate but vital ABC suite of sites? I ask these questions because the patent failure in design of the ABC Local Radio sites plays into the larger questions of producing content and creating stylistics that integrate broadcast and online approaches. It also relates to this running sore in the current dispute around the 2009 schedule: why produce material only for online. What real research and deep thinking has gone into how to manage the inter-relationship between online and broadcast? As other posters have said, surely it is the quality and relevance of the broadcast material that underwrites much of the online appeal for podcast devotees and others. I hate to think RN management has actually lost its way at this critical juncture of the digital revolution but all the public evidence points that way. I really do look forward to some revelations that they have at last got a grip and can steer the national network more creatively and surely.
It all becomes curioser and curioser. It remains very disconcerting that from a key media entity whose main game is effective and optimal communication that the narrative about its operating philosophy and future approach has become so confused and RN management seems trapped even more than usual in the tar-pit of internal ABC politics. That such distinct reports about Sue Howard’s involvement and “culpability” in these processes and about the growing antipathy between the Director of Radio and her Managing Director have started to leak more obviously is very telling considering Howard’s long history of self-protection and mastery over plausability when it comes to defending her patch. She clearly has form and maybe her long tenure with ultimately little evidence of creative strategic innovation emerging from her stewardship has finally caught up with her. Surely, an executive in her position should be responsible for what has happened over the last few weeks and months. If not she then who? Maybe the example from Lesley Douglas in the UK (just resigned Head of BBC Radio 2 following the Brand/Ross/Sachs affair) should be a bracing reminder of the contours and ethics of accountability for the ABC Director of Radio.
Speaking of rumours I ask internal “mumblers” from the ABC to confirm reports that Crittenden had been involved in extensive discussions with RN management about the 2009 RN schedule and had been promised a prominent position in the new arrangements before he decided to deliver his spray on his last Religion Report. Was he “turned” by somebody within the ABC religion department at the last moment?.
I repeat my earlier question about dumping a Media Report rather than re-designing and re-energising the current program to meet the clear requirement for a vital, sharp and forensic Media program. I have not heard from any RN source why the internal thinking believes that RN does not need a specialist and continuing media show. Please explain!