The ABC’s political reporting is broken. How to fix it? Take the advice given to all budding writers and kill your darlings — starting with the flagship, Insiders.
It’s been sad to watch the program tilt from its must-watch lifting of the lid of Parliament House, with a teaser on what’s likely to happen next, into an after-the-fact laundering of the ABC’s passive acceptance of News Corp’s judgments on what constitutes news.
The Murdoch media innovation was to recognise it could take the semiotics of traditional news — its look and feel — and use them to masquerade the campaigning media voice of the populist right. It took a while, but most of the political and journalistic world, particularly in the United States, has figured out what’s going on and adjusted accordingly.
Almost alone, the ABC seems convinced it should follow along with the US corporation’s interpretation of the media landscape, embracing News Corp’s focus that the politics of politics (however manufactured) is what makes “news”. Spoiler: it’s not.
We saw how this all works again on the weekend, with host David Speers desperately attempting to flog a few final faltering steps out of the all-but-dead horse that was Donald Trump’s ramble on Kevin Rudd as Australia’s ambassador to the United States. (Watching the original GB News video, it’s not certain Trump had the faintest idea who Kevin Rudd was, but he was happy to go along with the stunt as a favour to his political ally as interviewer, Nigel Farage.)
Sure, nothing excites the provincial mindset of Australia’s traditional media more than the thought that someone, somewhere in the global imperial centre, has noticed us. And it’s no surprise Australia’s right-wing media would grab the opportunity to kick back at one of its domestic enemies. It’s a sign, too, of the balance of power between the political and media wings of Australia’s right that the federal Liberals felt the need to try to kick the story along in Parliament — despite the criticism they received.
But the ABC embracing the stunt as the key news of the week demonstrates just how blind the broadcaster’s political news judgment has become.
It’s not a one-off; it follows the avid promotion of News-driven talking points over the past few months, all given legitimacy through Insiders’ focus: the nuclear renaissance, the “ute tax” lens on emissions standards, and the “broken promise” framing of Labor’s restructuring of stage three tax cuts.
There are some signs the ABC recognises its Insiders problem, at least since respected former editor of The Australian David Armstrong’s public critique of Speers, tweeting: “He is interested in superficial political analysis because he is incapable of delving deeply into policy”.
Speers’ recent interviews have become less antagonistic, with fewer interruptions, although his recent questioning of Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles came with an elaborate gotcha set-up on AUKUS expenditure addled by confusion over four-year and 10-year figures.
Yet Speers’ time as political editor for Sky News demonstrated that his best work comes when he lets the subject make their own mistakes, with his nice-guy persona leaving them comfortable enough to be careless, like his famous reputation-ending interview with George Brandis.
The recent Nemesis series demonstrated the strengths the ABC brings when it builds its political reporting around the answers rather than the questions, with a “show-don’t-tell” production.
On 7.30, Sarah Ferguson’s and Laura Tingle’s best interviews are when they set aside the News Corp politics-as-conflict talking points and use the space of current affairs to critically explore policy — you know, the things governments do that actually matter. Similarly, the best of the Insiders panellists are often ABC non-Canberra specialist reporters brought in to add depth on a matter of policy.
Meanwhile, John Lyons’ reporting and interviews out of the Middle East are showing a better way, with a passion for the story and depth of knowledge leavened with a critical distance from the players to provide an outstanding balance in that most complex of stories.
But first: the ABC has to kill the News Corp darling of the politics-of-politics conflict and give us reporting on policy that matters.
Is it time for the ABC to rethink its politics reporting? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
Good summary and identification of the core problem.
Watching Insiders is like watching interns eating vanilla ice creams and agreeing how good they are at doing it.
Spears was unable to see why Farange was milking Trump for a response. For that reason he should be removed. When all the mainstream media in this country is owned by the right wing of politics ,an ex Sky news presenter just shows how much impact 10 years of conservative politics has had on the ABC.
Media Watch last night showed more of the GB News clip, and Farage had said that this question was specifically asked to be included by Sky News Australia, That ought to tell you something about its provenance and why it would be asked – specifically to provide Sky News Australia with another anti-labor talking point!
media Watch did a good job showing what a circus that Trump/Farage episode was.
Yes it did. And also on the topic of the article, above, that is not open for comments – the one with the Thai masseuse allegations. Paul Barry is doing a great job on MW.
Much SkyNews Oz content gets more eyeballs offshore on social media with much cross sharing too, while even 9F sometimes gets into the act via Washington correspondent to promote GOP talking points, to be shared by RW influencers further; new info ‘architecture’?
On the latter, one is shocked locally, especially regions, at how both ageing and low info ALP or LNP voters (suitably cynical about Oz MSM) opine that ‘Biden’s so old’ or solar, EV’s etc. don’t work, but no opinions on Trump or local substantive policies; szalami tactics?
Amen. Sky News seems to exist mainly to generate YouTube clips
“Australian commentator SLAMS RADICAL LEFT WOKE etc etc”
It’s quite a clever, sneaky grift. When I first installed Windows 11 and couldn’t get rid of its news headlines feature, it was a non-stop parade of clips of Sky News “slamming” Labor
Agree, and worse one has an aggregator on key words or players inc. some retired LNP types, interesting how they are tagged to a SkyNews clip, but neither related nor in the clip…. seems like a bit of SEO search engine optimisation engineering to attract more eyeballs…. while the same search engines &/or social media often seem to boost them….
Coincidentally, Abbott’s advisor (who has been interviewed by Farage in past) seemed quite supportive of Farage, UKIP, now Reform and similar inc. climate science denial, while describing the Tories & e.g. ‘Torygraph’ as ‘lefties’…..
We’ve always known Abbott is ga-ga, you tell by his choice of friends, even if not by his own demeanor and utterings.
One has become acquainted with their public communication and messaging; be highly sceptical…..
Absolutely, more and more I am not watching either Insiders or Q&A….
Same with me. I gave up Q+A when Stan Grant was hosting and see no reason to return to viewing it.
And I agree totally with David Armstrong’s public critique of Speers, tweeting: “He is interested in superficial political analysis because he is incapable of delving deeply into policy”. I gave up watching Insiders a year ago except for the ever-decreasing Talking Pictures segment with Mike Bowers.
I do think that 7:30 has improved greatly since it moved away from its heavy focus on federal politics to considering other issues, including regional matters, in greater depth. Laura Tingle’s federal politics segments are succinct and pointed and cut through all the politics as conflict crap that are too much the focus of news programs.
Barrie Cassidy was always going to be a hard act to follow. He was a master of asking a question and giving the responder enough time to answer plus another 15 seconds to make their own mistakes. If Speers used to be good at that it was well before I ever saw him.
Michelle Grattan is the most inane of them all… a pointless read, every time.
Q&A last night on the housing crisis was actually quite refreshing with a lot of applause for Max Chandler-Mather, although PK seemed to interrupt him and send a lot of questions to the Lib panel member instead of the economist and the social issues panel member.
modus operandi per the panel of lobbyland most with property and big pharma connections – Micallef should chair / host it – Jon Faine – get Kelli Jay keen on who is tsking the givt to court for the lies and discrimination
ABC RN Saturday Extra had a panel on regional housing crisis (Dubbo, Tassie & Regional Oz NGO), one thought maybe to offset all the confected urban noise about immigrants, students and NOM blamed for ‘housing crisis’ etc..
It was interesting e.g. Dubbo building high rise to accommodate essential workers etc., but little analysis of drivers, more anecdotal, and several times blaming ‘renewable’ project inducing migration and population growth, but ignoring ageing (boomers holding property longer, tree changers, Air B’n’B, loss of low income housing & zoning constraints).
Not only shows how desperate MSM is to denigrate renewables (vs fossil fuels & nuclear decoy), but the US ‘think tank’ PR and lobbying influence where anti-immigrant nativism is joinged at the hip with fossil fueled faux ‘free markets’ i.e. Tanton and Koch.
“ ageing (boomers holding property longer” ? ? By what measure ? Old people have always tended to want to spend their last days in their own homes, that they have probably worked hard for and lived in for most of their adult lives.
Who the hell do you think you are ?
Offensive, disrespectful twit.
A fact not a criticism, we (a big ‘bubble’) are living longer, hence, staying in data and holding property longer, it’s not a difficult concept to understand?
It concurs with population dynamics occurring everywhere and symptoms of previous high fertility i.e. our long term population growth is driven by the permanent population, not the short term temporary border movements of students creating ‘data noise’, inc. in ERP est. resident population and then spikes it, then our RW MSM bangs on about (vs. ALP etc.).
Late Prof. Hans Rosling health, development and data expert explained well; basically we are healthier and living longer (yippee?), hence, we aggregate and stay in the data longer, which creates population growth.
See his Gapminder Foundation ‘Don’t Panic – The Facts About Population
https://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-the-facts-about-population/
Bill you are right do not worry bout the bias ageist myopia – these people have forgotten about those multinationals investment corporates with billions of dollars in our sovereign( ?) land – the dolts think a few fortunate so called human beings past 48 got all their stuff but its the buying power of corporates who invest in our land and do all that greenfields piracy – the media do not help this false narrative either – tge ageism and too often the ignorant sexism is stunning and lets the real culprits to carry on importing cheap compliant workers and selling our stuff to private pirates who set up tax havens off shore
It’s a strange and new concept that older people should move out of the house that they have spent a lot of their life in and money on and move into an old folks home because there isn’t enough housing. We’ve never had a million people arrive in a bit more than a year before. In fact no developed country in the world has seen 3 or 4% of its population in immigration in such a short period of time. No it’s not baby boomers causing the problem. The crisis that we have now was obviously caused by the huge number of people arriving into a country that already had a housing shortage. The 2019 Labor policy allowing new negative gearing on new builds only would have helped a lot as well as the reduction in the CGT discount. Banning overseas buyers for domestic housing would help with prices. The argument that we need heaps of people to support the over 65s is ridiculous when we have one of the lowest proportion of over 65s in the developed world at only 16% of the population.
Big statement ‘In fact no developed country in the world has seen 3 or 4% of its population in immigration in such a short period of time.’ do you have a source?
Because of the ‘nebulous’ UNPD/ABS NOM (ony UK, Oz & NZ use?) which has inflated our border movements since 2006, and most nations use different ways of measuring, we cannot compare.
You are linking established homes with older Australians, then claim they have to move out for a million people for (undefined) ‘immigration’, but most of the latter are international student border movements, most are not looking to buy a house, let alone be able to access a mortgage.
‘Immigrants’ i.e. students, use diverse housing types including homestays with families, shares, colleges, student accommodation, apartments etc..
Then on ‘The argument that we need heaps of people to support the over 65s is ridiculous when we have one of the lowest proportion of over 65s in the developed world at only 16% of the population’, for now…. due to young ‘immigrants’ i.e. students caught under the NOM, counted into the population, hence, inflating the working age cohort (although with work restrictions) and keeping population younger and dependency ratios lower.
However, according to the OECD, this figure is increasing annually as is the old age dependency ratio of retirees vs. working age; the latter taxpayer cohort is declining vs more retirees/pensioners tugging on budgets for healthcare, pensions, rebates, services, infrastructure etc..
Old age dependency ratio was 20 in 2000, now 31 and by 2050 41…….imo start flattening out post 2050 after the boomer ‘bomb’ has departed.
Nonetheless, where are the taxes coming from to ensure younger and future generations have the same benefits as boomers, or will it be user pays, fewer services and high tax rates? Bit like HECS and university fees…..
they collect our Data to sell and why no free expression of our democracy forum – be nice –
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBBBr9GPnPo&pp=ygUKc2FsIGdyb3Zlcg%3D%3D
The clearest failure of the Insiders approach is Samantha Maiden. She has been on four times since the last election, and each time she moans nobody is leaking to her. Maybe she just isn’t an insider.
Speers follows the ABC house style of talking over guests. Sometimes this works to limit waffle but mostly it just limits any possibility that we might understand what the interviewee is thinking or doing about an issue.
Instead of Politics Reporters, the ABC needs specialists. It has started with Andrew Green and Stephen Dzedzic covering foreign policy, but why stop there: specialist Education Reporters might uncover why we all want schools funded but only some schools are; specialist Health Reporters, Agriculture Reporters might shine some light where another interview with Barnaby Joyce can’t and won’t. They could make good use of the resources currently lavished on Greg Jennett or Annabel Crabb.
Every Friday ABC RN Breakfast treats its listeners to several minutes of Samantha Maiden and David Speers pontificating smugly together, and I cannot think why anyone believes this is a good idea.
Look at the quality of ABC senior management.
Anne Connolly is an excellent ABC reporter specialising in aged care.
Greg Jennett has killed Afternoon Briefing being useful for any purpose.
He has killed every program he ever appeared on. A dead weight.
I can live with Samantha Maiden, but I cannot abide Patricia Karvelas. She has the air of someone who thinks she is the smartest person in the room.
I no longer watch qanda because of “PK”.
I stopped watching Insiders about 8 months ago for the reasons printed in the article.
They were once in my Top 5. Goodness me. How quickly things can turn to rubbish. It has its benefits – I sleep in on Sundays and go to bed early on Mondays!
She’s the only one who thinks so.
You need to listen to RN where those Specialists hare given the time to talk in depth: Science Show, Health Report, Background Briefing, Big Ideas, Late Night Live, Saturday and Sunday mornings, the list goes on.
Even the Science Show had been manipulated to promote talking points of the 1970s astroturf and fossil fuel Club of Rome and ‘limits to growth’ junk science….debunked by real scientists vs. their ‘thinkers’, in ‘Models of Doom’
You might want to update your knowledge on the current state of research. Below is a link to a Springer article entitled “A Brief History of The Limits to Growth Debate”.
The Abstract states: “Economists in particular rejected the notion that human economies have any limits and treated the work [The Limits to Growth] with derision. Scientists took a more supportive approach and have written independent reviews and developed the limits ideas. A number of them have tested the modelling against real-world outcomes 30, 40 or 50 years later, and have found that the Limits projections are reliable”.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-78795-0_8
The comment below “A Brief History of The Limits to Growth Debate”; science is not a ‘debate’ but that’s what the old fossil fueled climate science deniers claim?
Further, an abstract, of a chapter, from a non peered reviewed book, cherry picked and presented by itself is not academic credibility vs. showing broad deep reading, understanding and analysis of relevant peer reviewed research.
Criticism of ‘limits to growth’ in Models of Doom by an interdisciplinary team at Sussex University’s Science Policy Research Unit:
‘the Sussex scientists claim that the MIT methods, data, and predictions are faulty, that their world models–with their built-in Malthusian bias–do not accurately reflect reality‘
IMO, being privy to similar e.g. Daly’s Steady State economy also based on ‘limits to growth’ and promoted via the fossil fuel Club of Rome, has an eerie feel of 1930s autarky and autocracy of Italy and Germany, what’s that all about?
If you want a broad deep reading, understanding and analysis of relevant peer reviewed research, then I’m sure you’ll find it in the actual chapter I referenced in the book. You surely don’t expect me to quote the entire chapter here in Crikey?
That book, for those interested, is Sustainability and the New Economics, a 2022 publication edited by Stephen J Williams and Rod Taylor. It contains contributions by such people as Steve Keen (a critic of neoclassical economics and a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn); John Quiggin (formerly on the board of the Australian Climate Change Authority, and a blogger commenting on world events from a socialist viewpoint); Will Steffen (formerly a member of the Australian Climate Commission and subsequently a founding member of the Climate Council); and Michael Kirby (retired High Court judge nicknamed “the Great Dissenter”). Hardly a band of Club of Rome/ MIT/ Koch network/ whatever stooges.
Not sure if Green and Dzedzic are examples of exemplary reporting – Green is happy to spout the merits of AUKUS and Dzedzic seems happy to , Hartcher like, spout the predictable News Limited /ASPI anti China claptrap .
The fact that you don’t agree with someone’s opinions on any subject doesn’t make them not good at their job.
Consider that your opinion is only that – your opinion. Others are just as entitled to their own opinions, more so if they actually have knowledge on the subject, rather than knee-jerk reactions.
Shouldnt quality current affairs reporting and political analysis be about parking your individual opinions and impartially unpacking issues and impacts surely?
No, specialist reporters might debunk and/or discredit mooted policies and talking points vs. generalists, PR types and guest ‘commentators’ who go with the flow 🙂
A former social media & comms person at one of the London Tufton St. Atlas – Koch think tanks (= IPA, CIS etc.) explained how they do PR and lobbying to target MPs and media with imported ‘talking points’; media presenters are too easy when they are ‘economically naive’ while lacking skills of science, data, analysis and formulating questions.
Many need a refresher in social science 101 and learn the science/research process as opposed to PR techniques.
I agree with most of that CW, but I tuned into Insiders for the third time in 6 months because of the Tassie election, and it wasn’t bad. One of the panel members was a bit self important without any attributes to back his self assessment up, but the two women were great. Speers is a good go for the jugular interview type, but falls flat on his face with examining policy. He’s only interested in calling the horse race.
The federal politics section of ABC news now feels like you’re watching the work experience kids walking on egg shells. They gave the arxe to senior journalists to save money, and the juniors are terrified of being anything but banal lest they make a mistake. They’re always on thin ice because there “ain’t no other jobs out there” as the legacy mafia slowly fades to nothing.
Patricia Karvelas is a boil that needs lancing.
Sam Maiden, her Friday morning guest is just plain nasty, and the other Friday morning guest, Speers, is just plain beige.
In “analysing” the Farage/Trump/Rudd interview, Speers said “It’s often difficult to know what Trump is saying”.
No, it wasn’t, Speersy. It was as plain as your personality, and you couldn’t even describe the context.
Id like some vox pop and a public guest to ask the real questions – get the gate keepers out of our public spaces our forums – and stop going the way of Scotland with tge upcoming online data and privacy jump into dystopian Big Brother Corporatised ownership and the ensuing thought police dressed up as ” “being nice” … whilst they throw First Nations under a bus with no agency in the influenced decision making Canberra lobbyland bubble
And that most awful voice
Re PK