Overlooked the announcement of hundreds more jobs losses at the ABC in June was the release of the efficiency review of the ABC and SBS commenced in the last days of the Turnbull government. It’s a document that had far more coverage before it was written than afterward.
It’s clear why the government left it sitting on a shelf for 18 months: the authors, former Foxtel CEO Peter Tonagh, who recently came to the rescue of AAP, and media lawyer and regulator Richard Bean, concluded that while both broadcasters should be much more strategic in their planning and transparent in their processes, they needed the financial certainty of a 10-year funding timeframe.
That won’t interest a government that would prefer the ABC doesn’t even exist ten years from now.
But the review zeroed in on a major problem with the broadcaster’s multichannel strategy: the ABC News channel (formerly known as News 24). ABC News channel marked its 10th birthday in July, having been established with a strict assurance that it would not draw resources away from other areas of the ABC — something both the channel’s supporters and opponents agree happens regardless of what ABC management says.
These days it is portrayed as the “brainchild” of news director Gaven Morris (whose wife Kirsten Aiken is one of the main newsreaders), though the idea of an ABC news channel in fact goes back to the David Hill/Kim Williams era last century. Morris sent staff a celebratory email on July 22 saying he was “looking forward to what the next 10 years will bring”.
The ABC News channel is expensive — though exactly how expensive, the ABC refuses to say. Tonagh and Bean received little cooperation from the ABC during their review, and noted that the broadcaster refused to provide access to materials and management. But the cost of the ABC News channel is certainly in the tens of millions:
“The review estimates that the ABC spends over $120 million on its multi-channels with approximately 600 full time equivalent staff (approximately 15% of the ABC workforce). Based on these estimates ABC News is the highest cost multi-channel utilising the largest proportion of full time equivalent staff.”
But the channel manages to attract less than two thirds of the audience of the less costly ABC Kids/ABC Comedy channel (formerly ABC2).
It does better than ABC ME, the channel for primary school-aged kids, except during the evenings, when ABC ME achieves about the same audience numbers. But the ABC News channel relies on simulcasted content from the ABC’s main channel to get audiences: according to Tonagh and Bean, “peak viewing on ABC News occurs during hours where content is simulcast from ABC1”.
In contrast, the only program originating on the news channel that has migrated to ABC TV’s main channel is the simulcast ABC News Breakfast, which copies a commercial network format — chatty presenters conducting interviews and telling us what’s going on in the world.
Tonagh and Bean noted that the ABC News channel’s average weekly metro reach had fallen significantly since 2014. The ABC’s 2019 annual report acknowledges both metro and regional weekly reach for the channel fell further since the review.
The ABC argues, in a statement posted last week following Crikey’s questions about the news channel, that it has lifted its audiences this year and that so far in 2020, “its average metro + regional weekly reach is 4 million”. It acknowledges “all networks have been experiencing a steady audience decline for some years … the news channel’s broadcast reach has been in line with total TV declines”.
Nonetheless, with an hourly evening average of around 50,000 viewers, the news channel is regularly outrated on weeknights by Sky News At Night, a CCTV feed from an insane asylum that people have to pay to watch.
Part of the problem is that the ABC News channel has produced little compelling content of its own despite an extensive investment in studios, expensive graphics, and equipment. Only interview program One Plus One, arts show The Mix, regional news wrap The Virus, Stan Grant’s short-lived Matter of Fact, The Drum and News Breakfast originated there.
Unlike Sky News’ daytime news service, the ABC News channel doesn’t break stories but instead relies on a mix of rolling news coverage, media conferences and repeats of ABC main channel current affairs like Foreign Correspondent, Four Corners, Landline and Australian Story.
Tonagh and Bean’s recommendation was to consolidate all of the ABC’s multichannels into a single channel combining kids, local content and news, saving on the costs of producing and transmitting two other channels.
Those savings could be reinvested in improving the ABC’s core functions: original broadcast journalism, children’s programming and local and regional content.
The review made a similar recommendation about SBS’ multichannels, and argued in relation to both broadcasters that “longer term, between $80 million and $115 million per annum could be redirected to reinvestment … a minimum of $45 million in content and resourcing would also be diverted from existing multichannels to reconfigured ABC and SBS main channels and IP platforms”.
The ABC disputes those figures, saying the costing “was based on assumptions made by the review and not on ABC data”, and that it doesn’t know the basis for them despite asking the government for it.
The review also suggested some multichannel content could move fully online, and ABC TV could still provide coverage of major breaking news stories via its remaining single multichannel — which was the accepted routine before the ABC News channel was launched in 2010.
The question of whether the tens of millions spent on the ABC News channel would be better directed into the ABC’s core functions, including news and current affairs, is far more acute now than when the review was undertaken.
Funding cuts inflicted on the ABC by the current government have lead to 250 positions being lost, including 70 of the ABC’s most accomplished journalists and producers, such as chief rural reporter Dominique Schwartz, chief arts correspondent Michaela Boland, radio current affairs executive producer Elizabeth Jackson and chief economics correspondent Emma Alberici.
But with thousands of editorial positions being slashed at commercial metropolitan and regional media companies, the ABC is becoming the last resort of public interest journalism — though these days always from John Lyons’ current affairs teams, not the ABC News area, which breaks few stories, is more focused on clickbait, and has a record of caving into government pressure.
How the ABC allocates its resources thus has greater national importance than ever, and the benefit of the ABC News channel to public interest journalism and news-breaking seems less clear than at any time in the last decade.
Not all agree. UTS professor and head of journalism Monica Attard, previously a long-time ABC journalist and editor, backs the channel.
“It enables the ABC to re-run its best programs from ABC1 and cover news conferences (even if it annoys everyone by cutting away from them),” she told Crikey. “It also enables the ABC to run more local stories and forces journalists to broaden the voices that are heard on the ABC.”
Attard also disputes the suggestion from the review that much of this content can simply be shifted online to platforms like iView and YouTube.
“The ABC is still grappling with multiple audiences — over-60s in its audience who are not tech savvy mean it is still betwixt and between on delivery. It can do online delivery in 10 to 20 years but it’s not there yet.”
ABC veteran and former staff-elected director Matt Peacock, now chair of the ABC Alumni group, said establishing the channel was smart, and had forced ABC news to learn to “scramble fast”. But he also argued the channel was a significant drain on resources elsewhere, including sucking in talent and time from other divisions to provide content and updates.
This was a point made by another ABC veteran, who noted journalists at the ABC’s foreign bureaux have to devote time to live crosses to ABC News that could be better spent finding out what was really going on, especially during major events. He described the channel as a misuse of resources that started a decade too late.
One senior ABC news source suggested a key problem was that ABC news director Gaven Morris hadn’t spent any time making quality, fact-checked and long form current affairs, and therefore didn’t appreciate the time and resources required to produce it.
With minimal audiences and little journalistic impact, what was 10 years ago an 1990s-era indulgence by the ABC may be an unaffordable luxury in a country starved of public interest journalism.
If anything should be cut it’s ABC News Breakfast. If I wanted to see saccharine soaked smiley faced twits deliver the news while insanely chatting to random guests, I’d go through the lobotomising task of watching Sunrise or the Today Show. It is better than its commercial counterparts, in that there is a pleasant lack of white supremacists and arrogant twats as hosts, but it still isn’t how news should be presented. The ABC is a great public broadcaster with content better than any commercial broadcaster. It should strive to be better than the commercial networks, but not by aping their format.
I agree. If “news has to be entertaining” then it has to be ‘entertaining’ : not a clone of tabloid self-indulgent pap, for the amusement of presenters rather than ‘rubes’ – that’s not entertaining.
The Dum is another example – conservative chairs indulging their conservative politics and political contacts (from a set chocolate wheel of “ex”-Coalition politicians) , spouting their politics and mitigation/defence of the Coalition government + a bit of ‘padding (ie “2/3 other guests”)’.
“The Dum”. I like what you did there.
I hope they’re not paying those IPA shills to come on. Surely they realise by now that no matter how nice you are to these fascists they will never make any concessions. Time to replace the News Channel with a black screen and the caption “This lack of programming is the direct result of funding cuts imposed by the Liberal Party”.
The Drum was particularly irritating the other night, when Ellen Fanning decided that a discussion on Modern Monetary Theory was a topic for “light relief”, as she described it. She let recent MMT convert Alan Kohler talk for 30 seconds and giggled on an on about about wacky it seemed to her. It was appallingly amateurish. No-one gives a crap what Ms Fanning thinks – she is the moderator, not the opinionater. Let Micallef do the light relief, but if the Drum wants to pretend to be an informative discussion of serious issues, then it has to conduct itself accordingly. Stan Grant is far and away the most professional of the Drum chairs.
The other event on The Drum that got up my nose last week was the way Jennifer Hewett from the IPA, I mean AFR, was allowed to present uninterrupted and unchallenged an editorial on the alleged shortcomings of Daniel Andrews, without any mention or question of Federal responsiblity for Covid management. Next time any troll goes on about ABC left-wing bias, just screen Ms Hewett’s diatribe and note the lack of any “left wing” attempt at argument.
The Drum was particularly irritating the other night, when Ellen Fanning decided that a discussion on Modern Monetary Theory was a topic for “light relief”, as she described it. She let recent MMT convert Alan Kohler talk for 30 seconds and giggled on an on about about wacky it seemed to her. It was appallingly amateurish. No-one gives a fig what Ms Fanning thinks – she is the presenter, not the opinionater. Let Micallef do the light relief, but if the Drum wants to pretend to be an informative discussion of serious issues, then it has to conduct itself accordingly. Stan Grant is far and away the most professional of the Drum chairs.
The other event on The Drum that got up my nose last week was the way Jennifer Hewett from the IPA, I mean AFR, was allowed to present uninterrupted and unchallenged an editorial on the alleged shortcomings of Daniel Andrews, without any mention or question of Federal responsibility for Covid management. Next time anyone goes on about ABC left-wing bias, just screen Ms Hewett’s diatribe and note the lack of any “left wing” attempt at argument.
“Feathers”.
A month ago she was peddling the government line that JobKeeper was too much (it needed cutting back) – it was easier to be on that than go “looking for all those jobs” out there?
Then last week, there was 1,000,000+ unemployed – was that JobKeeper’s fault? Or lack of jobs.
>>> Sky News At Night, a CCTV feed from an insane asylum that people have to pay to watch.
Bwahah coffee splurt.
Australia can afford to have higher quality independent news of course. But the neoliberal trick of framing everything in terms of competition with the commercial vendors is not one that invites quality and innovation.
Bring back lateline, don’t cut the 7.45am news. My favourite shows for grown-ups have now declined in intellectual effectiveness with Aunty’s preference to “balance” the discussion with IPA/LNP/Newscorp drones. Very sad indeed.
Who has a story on this..? I follow ABC in areas of classic and jazz music, news radio, SBS, and some other chosen areas to suit, including radio national, but, ABC news T V stinks, seems foreign, is repulsive when intruders try to domineer on the drum (the dumb?) as part of opinionated talkers to themselves first (and often only). Who sits passively and watches it? No-one I know has ever mentioned it. The basic ABC is getting riddled with ex-commercial cancerisms and maggotmouths.
What is the big picture behind Bernard’s enticement to critique ABC dominance of news? We all know ABC public credibility essentially biggest ‘spur under blanket’ of Conservatives?
We all know ABC News including Channel 24 not so long ago grasped Bushfire debacle(s) by the throat? And right now we also know Virus blame game is threatening “big names”? Divert. Divert. Divert.
And who has not noted the “loading” of conservative talking heads on virtually every public interest ABC programme? Yes, there are ABC programme lapses. But I’m stuffed if I’ll join a rush to aid in discrediting ABC News without first considering the impact of very, very smart beneficiaries who have built up quite a head of steam? For them it’s pay back time. And, the last thing wanted is a strong, professional news outlet going into next federal election carrying so much conservative “baggage.’?
The majority of ABCNews content is available online. Rather than sit through the repetitive ABC Breakfast it’s easier to glean the news on the ABC website – which has more updated information than the live telecast & sport can be avoided entirely.
As for the press conferences, I refuse to watch them having experienced too many without audio for journalists’ questions to be heard by the viewers. Watching a politician answer a mystery question & not knowing what is being addressed is too frustrating. A waste of airtime.
Put the savings from scrapping ABCNews into investigative journalism – & bring back Lateline to ABC1. Australians are poorer for its loss.
The solution to knowing the journalists’ questions at press conferences is to learn Auslan. The questions as well as the response (sometimes an answer) are both translated. Good form at professional gatherings I attend is for the person with the microphone to paraphrase the question if the audience can’t hear it. This is a skill seemingly beyond our leaders. Surely technology exists to enable all to be heard. But I digress.
News Breakfast is a bewildering attempt to copy a product for which there is already ample supply. Surely it is a small niche that want shallow chat but not quite the same as is already readily available on commercial channels. Possibly so that they can continue to say “Oh, I only watch the ABC”.
Get rid of one of the few vaccines we have against a Murdochracy?
…. Then again we get “Insiders” – the weasels overrunning Toad Hall?
WTF, they couldn’t get someone other than Speers? A “Wankley” – for tripping Brandis – been out to “Gotcha!” every Labor politician since – yesterday it was Shorten.
The ABC already had the likes of Tingle and Epstein – yesterday “overlooked” when discussing ‘the Ruby Princess exoneration of Dutton’s ABF & Morrison’.
A “select discussion” :-
more intent on pushing blame to NSW Health;
ignoring the fact that Morrison refused leave for ABF personnel to appear before the RC and give evidence;
failing to wonder at the “reason” ABF was included in that loop “overlooking arrivals”, for them to have the last say ….. to then leave it to someone “in charge” to misinterpret paper-work and let the ship unload;
that lamented the dearth of swabs supplied by Carnival/the ship : when even the test results – from the swabs taken and handed over for testing – were ignored, so that the disembarkation could proceed after two passengers were unloaded virtually Cry-O-Vac’d in protective gear, such was the worry about ?
And you might have thought they’d spared a thought for the number of passengers that felt ill and didn’t present to the doctors on board “because they charged like wounded bulls”? NF’nL.
Speers failed to note that Shorten presented an aged care policy at the election last year but the only response from the media was to echo the response from Morrison and Frydenberg about “costings”. No-one thought to ask about the substance of the policy, no-one thought to ask if the Coalition had a policy – just the costings. Given subsequent events, I think the costings being incurred now would have made Labor’s costings look like chicken feed. One thing the focus on costings showed is that in fact Morrison is prepared to put a price on the lives of the elderly. But no-one in the media seems to have noticed.
And no mention of Dutton and Morrison being responsible for quarantine when it was the ethnic Chinese Australians returning from Wuhan. They couldn’t get in front of a camera quickly enough to tell us how the Chinese were going to Christmas Island for quarantine. So it was a Federal responsibility then.
But when white Australians started arriving from Europe and the US, suddenly no-one was being sent to Christmas Island. Instead it became a state responsibility and quarantine in hotels in the middle of our capital cities. Morrison wasn’t going to be so silly as to send white Australians off to Christmas Island.