Let’s dispose of the Murdoch thing straight away. Kim Williams worked for Rupert Murdoch for more than a decade, but the idea that he’s some sort of sinister News Corp plant installed at the ABC (by, erm, Labor) is the kind of conspiracy theory only the left Twitterati could sustain.
Williams has worked at senior levels in film, broadcasting and the arts for several decades apart from his spell at News Corp — including under former chair David Hill at the ABC, a relationship that ended in tears. The fact that Lachlan Murdoch is now running the show at News Corp is all the more reason to assume that Williams will be rigorously independent as ABC chair.
Williams always seemed a poor fit at News Corp. Most particularly, he ran a successful business, which in the Australian operations of the Murdoch empire made him almost unique. Whereas Chris Mitchell’s The Australian lost money for the majority of his tenure, in the 2000s Williams drove huge growth at Foxtel — despite the ridiculous limitations of the anti-siphoning list — before being booted upstairs for his stint as News Corp Australia CEO, where he was endlessly undermined by the loss-making reactionaries that still litter the joint.
Williams thus comes to the ABC with huge media, television and arts experience — and that makes him unique. No previous ABC chair since it became a corporation has had operational broadcasting management experience — although Donald McDonald was distinguished in arts administration, and Ita Buttrose had a preeminent career in publishing.
There have been two approaches to ABC board appointments over the decades. The traditional one — and one followed by Labor and the Turnbull government in recent times — is that the chair, and directors, come from a senior legal or business background, and are experienced directors. The ABC is a huge organisation that operates across multiple platforms (which compete internally for resources) and is viewed as requiring quality corporate governance, in addition to the public interest demands of the charter the board is required to follow. Broadcasting or journalistic expertise is not seen as a prerequisite.
The other approach was that of the Howard, Abbott and, to a lesser extent, Morrison governments: appoint right-wing ideologues or Coalition mates (I should know — in the early 2000s, I was the one doing the paperwork for such stacking of the ABC and SBS boards). Labor had appointed its own mates to the ABC board, of course — it put in John Bannon in the 1990s — but Howard and Abbott took it to a new level.
The problem with the Howard approach, which coincided with a period of historic transformation of the ABC as it went digital and moved online, is that its stackees could write an angry column denouncing the ABC as a socialist racket, but had no grasp of broadcasting operations, preventing them from exercising any real oversight over the ABC as it underwent the most profound technological transformation since the introduction of television. ABC senior managers knew they faced little board scrutiny over major capital strategies or procurement.
That situation also applied to more traditional ABC boards, but good governance from well-run and experienced boards can apply scrutiny even in the absence of technical expertise, as it does on the boards of well-run private companies with quality independent directors.
That’s why Williams is different. It’s been more than a decade since Williams was in broadcasting, and the industry has dramatically changed, but he brings a perspective on broadcasting operations and audiences to rival that of managing director David Anderson. Anderson and senior ABC executives can expect a much better-informed board scrutinising their strategies and proposals. The ABC’s ever-shrinking arts team will also find themselves much more in the internal spotlight, for better and for worse — Williams has already flagged, in his first interview after the announcement of his appointment, that he thinks the ABC’s arts coverage is decidedly underdone.
One more thing regarding Murdoch. Williams made use of an illuminating — no pun intended — metaphor in his interview, saying he very much saw the ABC as Australia’s “campfire”. That is, he sees the ABC as the place all Australians can gather around, a shared space for all citizens, a unifying institution.
That vision of the ABC is inimical to the whole business model of News Corp. Like it does in the United States, News Corp makes its money here from dividing Australians, from provoking and exploiting the resentment of Australians, from selecting targets to demonise and other. It is innately hostile to the idea of unifying institutions. It wants to drive people apart and exploit hate and outrage.
This is another reason to expect that Williams will be anything but a Murdoch stooge in his new role.
Well that is excellent news then Bernard, in the absence of anything that remotely represents something other than neoliberal ideology of mainstream media big boys, the ABC will be able to throw the odd bone the other way, or point, or give a nod, or cast light again without fear of sacking.
There is still no competition in mainstream media, it is all linked to mining interests or is closely related.
To have no say in what a privately owned broadcaster says is noble until those people are all from the same political background and mutually share commercial interests.
More moderate versions of Capitalism suggest this is a lack of competition holding back progress in an industry with a very important role to play. It’s a good day if you are right, thanks for the article.
David Anderson’s days as CEO of the ABC are now numbered. Anderson is a classic example of managerialism take over. He has no editorial experience, no broadcasting experience, and no program making experience. He just, well, manages – for a seven figure salary. Kim Williamson will see through him in seconds.
Why does a program that looks at classic literature have to be headed up by Claudia Karvan? Because Anderson and the people he has appointed find literature boring. They hope that casting a popular actress as the host will make what is inately boring, to them, interesting. Didn’t work. Nor did making Rachel Griffiths a presenter of an arts program that looked at iconic Australian landscapes. There was more screen time of shots Rachel than shots the art. Seriously!
Then there is science. Anderson and appointees go – oh dear – science is boring. Let’s make a show about health and give it a science angle and use everyone’s favourite comedian to front it: Magda Szubanski! Then the science can’t be too boring can it? As long as it is more about Magda than whatever the show is meant to be about. Didn’t work.
And so it goes on.
Kim Williamson won’t have to deal with barbarians at the gates and barbarians trying to storm the ramparts. He’ll have to deal with the fact the barbarians have their feet on up the coffee table, in the living room, and they’re sipping on bundy and coke and watching the indie super cars.
I think you’re being charitable there. Under Howard science was a dirty word. Indeed, organizations like the IPA and the ABC’s own Counterpoint, would tell us that science doesn’t eve exist!
Several key science shows on the ABC kicked the dust. It clearly isn’t possible to have a science show that politely avoided climate change, or the environment, or the destruction we are wreaking on our planet but all of these issues were unmentionable under the Howard [and later liberal governments]. Catalyst got into trouble for suggesting that statins might not be all they were cracked up to be and succumbed to pressure from Big Pharma.
It’s farcical that at this time in history, with life on earth at threat from human beings, the ABC doesn’t have a weekly program, or more, devoted specifically to science and the future of life on earth.
As to your comments on the arts, I agree completely.
But it does have a weekly programme devoted specifically to science: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/scienceshow
The ABC is more than just TV
Yes, some of the regular ABC radio or podcast programmes covering specific topics are excellent.
Quite so Paul and there might even be a leftie or two still left doing ABC radio science but the way in which successive Liberal governments succeeded in crushing ABC TV science has been quite extraordinary.
Let’s hope a new boss and a revitalized board can make some changes to science, the arts and fearless reporting on politics and world affairs.
Huh? David Anderson has worked at the ABC for 35 years, working his way through the ranks from mail room. It’s a key part of his whole story.
Should have stayed in the mail room.
Kim WIlliams
Agree, Williams apparently left NewsCorp with some antipathy towards the same, but more broadly think he is classical music trained (= good at maths & complexity) and he bemoaned over a decade ago the widespread digital illiteracy amongst business, media and political elites in Australia, suggesting they were philistines.
One issue is ABC RN reach in regions and offshore as podcasts can longer be downloaded, apparently the ListenApp is suboptimal ie. still requires good data coverage, if it can be downloaded as now restricted to Oz Google shop and streaming is terrible listening experience, suggesting ABC site may also be throttled (vs others no issue?).
Feedback varies from outright BS from ABC Audience claiming copyright restrictions through to others who were going to find out…..no response. However, appears Google Analytics is installed, hence, possible see audience location, reach, downloads, trends etc.; essential management information.
Thanks for this, Bernard. My first reaction after hearing of the appointment of Williams, without being aware of his full CV , was a knee-jerk “ oh crap, not another Murdoch stooge”. Nice to be set straight.
Anderson should be sacked very soon, he is ultimately responsible for much of the chaos at the ABC. He has not stood up for impartial reporting at all.
Too true JC-W, but in the face of a cataclysmic fall in the size of the audience for both radio and TV, the board reappointed him. How does that work?
Good question. So, who appointed the board?
And that ultimately is the key question, and the topic of greatest concern. Thanks for pointing it out SSR.
I think it’s these people:
https://www.pmc.gov.au/news/appointments-nomination-panel-abc-and-sbs-boards
As the Board is politically stacked…and the ABC is anathema to the far right….have you considered the possibility the Board had no problems with a ‘cataclysmic fall in the size of the audience’, and may have considered it a job well done.
Good point.
Yep. This is probably the first encouraging bit of news concerning the ABC since sometime before the last recession.