tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/david-anderson-60064/articlesDavid Anderson – The Conversation2023-11-20T03:16:40Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2181002023-11-20T03:16:40Z2023-11-20T03:16:40ZABC chief is right: impartiality is paramount when reporting the Israel-Gaza war<p>On November 17, the ABC’s editor-in-chief and managing director, David Anderson, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/not-our-place-to-use-terms-like-genocide-and-apartheid-says-abc-boss-20231117-p5ekrx.html">was interviewed</a> on Radio 774, the ABC’s local station in Melbourne, about criticisms of the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/melbourne-mornings/abc-managing-director-david-anderson-news-editorial-coverage/103119010">national broadcaster’s coverage</a> of the Israel-Gaza war.</p>
<p>The interview followed <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/abc-journalists-criticise-broadcaster-s-coverage-of-gaza-invasion-20231108-p5eijd.html?btis=">a well-publicised meeting</a> nine days earlier at which ABC journalists raised a range of concerns about the organisation’s coverage. These included the extent to which the ABC was relying on talking points supplied by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), and the alleged unwillingness of the ABC to use terms such as “invasion”, “occupation”, “genocide”, “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” when discussing Israeli government policy.</p>
<p>Concern was also reportedly expressed about what was said to be a blanket ban on the use of the word “Palestine”, with journalists from Muslim and Arab backgrounds saying there was a perception in their communities that the ABC was too pro-Israel.</p>
<p>It was also reported that senior managers acknowledged they had removed a specialist verification team because of the impact that work was having on staff. Instead, they were relying on ad-hoc advice from former Middle East correspondents.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1YiUXEdbY8U?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>David Anderson addressed many of these concerns in the Radio 774 interview. </p>
<p>In particular, he said while the ABC did include terms such as “genocide” and “apartheid” in reports of statements made by others, it was not prepared to adopt them itself. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Genocide is a claim that’s being made. It’s a serious crime. It’s an allegation of a crime. The IDF and Israel reject that. Same with apartheid. We’ll report other people’s use of that. We won’t use it ourselves.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>On the issue of alleged over-reliance on the IDF, Anderson was more equivocal. He said he wasn’t sure that was the case, but pointed out the difficulty of verifying material coming out of the war. “I think we’re trying to verify as much as we can.”</p>
<p>In terms of alienating local communities whose people are involved in the conflict, he said it came with the journalistic territory: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>We know that there are some people who will be offended by reporting one perspective or another. It’s our job and what’s enshrined in our charter. We don’t pick sides.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This response has generated a good deal of heat on social media, including an allegation that Anderson is acting out of fear by the stance he has taken on the use of the terms such as genocide and apartheid.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-exactly-is-a-ceasefire-and-why-is-it-so-difficult-to-agree-on-one-in-gaza-217683">What exactly is a ceasefire, and why is it so difficult to agree on one in Gaza?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At the heart of this discussion is one of the fundamental tenets of professional journalism: impartiality in news reporting, which includes the separation of news from opinion.</p>
<p>Impartiality is not the product of fear: it is the very reverse. It is the product of courageous efforts to be accurate, fair, balanced, open-minded, and unconflicted by personal interest, especially in the face of unrelenting pressure and highly charged emotions. It takes guts.</p>
<p>It takes guts because when damaging facts or allegations are reported, partisan interests affected negatively will accuse the journalist or the platform of favouring the other side. In no area of journalism is this more insistently demonstrated than in the reporting of the decades-long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.</p>
<p>Yet impartiality requires that important facts, once verified, be reported regardless of the anticipated blow-back. The same applies to serious allegations for which there is credible evidence.</p>
<p>Verification is foundational to accuracy. But in today’s world, journalists must navigate a landscape where fakery and misrepresentation have become not just art forms in images and text, but political dynamite. War makes the verification challenge even harder because of the combined effects of secrecy, confusion and the opportunities for propaganda.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PIzlfQ4al6M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>In addition to accuracy, impartiality requires that the language used should be calibrated to a fair portrayal of events, and that a story should achieve balance by following the weight of evidence.</p>
<p>The question of evidence brings us to yet another fundamental principle, both of law and of journalistic ethics: the strength of the evidence required to support an allegation must be commensurate with the gravity of the allegation. In law it is called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briginshaw_v_Briginshaw#:%7E:text=It%20essentially%20means%20that%20the,a%20standard%20ought%20be%20reached.">Briginshaw principle</a>. Getting that kind of evidence in the midst of war is difficult, but the imperatives of impartiality require that those accused should at least have the opportunity to reply.</p>
<p>A third challenge in stories where the nation has taken a clear position, as Australia has in its support for Israel, is that there is always pressure to report in ways that support the official narrative. Sometimes that pressure comes from within a media organisation, sometimes from outside and sometimes from both. It can become insidious, almost subconscious.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gaza-war-reporting-from-the-frontline-of-conflict-has-always-raised-hard-ethical-questions-217570">Gaza war: reporting from the frontline of conflict has always raised hard ethical questions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>To partisans, these might all seem like pussyfooting abstractions. But from a journalist’s perspective they lie at the heart of good professional practice, and Anderson’s approach as outlined in his interview was that of an editor-in-chief striving for impartiality and prepared to endure the backlashes that come with it.</p>
<p>Without independent evidence, the ABC is right not to adopt for itself terms such as “genocide” and “apartheid”, but equally it is right to report others making such allegations. These highly contested and emotive terms are often used for their rhetorical power, which is the province of partisans but not of journalists seeking to be impartial.</p>
<p>Impartiality matters because it provides the bedrock of reliable information people need if they are to make up their own minds free of the manipulation that results when news reporting is tainted by partisanship. That is why it is built into the ABC charter and why Anderson is right in his determination to uphold it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218100/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Without independent evidence, the ABC is right not to adopt for itself terms such as ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid’, but equally it is right to report others making such allegations.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1165402019-05-05T20:19:44Z2019-05-05T20:19:44ZDavid Anderson’s appointment as ABC managing director is a relief and will further steady the broadcaster<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272654/original/file-20190505-103049-3lyg5y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">David Anderson has more than 30 years' experience at the ABC, and appears to be well-regarded within the organisation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dan Himbrechts</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The appointment of David Anderson as managing director and editor-in-chief of the ABC is something of a relief.</p>
<p>It is an important early signal of how the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ita-buttroses-appointment-as-new-abc-chair-a-promising-step-in-the-right-direction-112683">new ABC chair, Ita Buttrose</a>, is giving effect to her promise of bringing stability to the ABC after the chaotic events of last September in which the broadcaster lost both its chair, Justin Milne, and managing director Michelle Guthrie.</p>
<p>While nothing is known about the alternative candidates, quite a bit is known about Anderson.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ita-buttroses-appointment-as-new-abc-chair-a-promising-step-in-the-right-direction-112683">Ita Buttrose's appointment as new ABC chair a promising step in the right direction</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>He has 30 years’ experience with the ABC. Before being appointed acting managing director after Guthrie’s sudden sacking, he was responsible for all ABC radio music and broadcast television networks and for its on-demand products and services.</p>
<p>He seems to be well-regarded inside the organisation. The director of news, Gaven Morris, tweeted “order restored”. The comedian Shaun Micallef posted a YouTube video clip from one of his sketches, the making of which required human ballast to tilt the set on an angle. Anderson, he said, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-03/abc-managing-director-named-david-anderson/11079152">came down from his office</a> and lent his heft to the task.</p>
<p>It can be safely anticipated that the ABC’s critics will see in this a cosy insiders’ choice designed to ensure the organisation remains self-referential in outlook and impervious to conservative influences.</p>
<p>It will be entertaining, in a droll kind of way, to see if epithets such as “the ABC collective”, “Trotskyite” and “sheltered workshop” get another run as they did when Russell Balding replaced Jonathan Shier after the latter’s chaotic reign came to an <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s405396.htm">abrupt end in 2001</a>.</p>
<p>Anderson’s appointment has many echoes of Balding’s. Balding too was an insider – he had been general manager of finance. He too was appointed following a chaotic reign and abrupt departure. He, too, was seen as a safe pair of hands who would restore stability, as indeed he did.</p>
<p>Like Balding, Anderson also inherits an ABC facing acute financial pressures and a recent history of hostility from the federal government.</p>
<p>However, a structural problem that was central to the way the Milne-Guthrie debacle played out is yet to be fixed.</p>
<p>That problem is the combining of the roles of managing director and editor-in-chief in the one person. Guthrie was hopelessly ill-suited by experience and inclination to be editor-in-chief. Anderson, whatever his other qualities, has no journalistic experience either.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/abc-inquiry-finds-board-knew-of-trouble-between-milne-and-guthrie-but-did-nothing-114752">ABC inquiry finds board knew of trouble between Milne and Guthrie, but did nothing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Mark Scott, who was editor-in-chief at the then Fairfax newspapers before being appointed managing director of the ABC, was exceptionally well qualified for both jobs. He has been <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/mark-scott-calls-for-a-tough-hand-to-steer-the-abc/news-story/3f782121410d38887122cb69a316989b">reported as saying</a> the chief executive of the broadcaster needs to embrace the editor-in-chief role. Scott said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The chief executive is responsible for everything that goes to air and you cannot have a structure where finally the chief executive is not responsible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While this is true, in most media organisations it is achieved differently. The editor-in-chief answers to the board through the chief executive; the board and chief executive answer to the shareholders – or, in the ABC’s case, to the government.</p>
<p>Moreover, under a structure like that, the editor-in-chief is not a board member and therefore is not a party to board decisions with the associated requirements of board solidarity.</p>
<p>In these two important ways, the editor-in-chief is shielded from becoming compromised, enabling him or her to make news decisions independent of corporate interests. It is called editorial independence and is the cornerstone of good journalism.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/abc-inquiry-finds-board-knew-of-trouble-between-milne-and-guthrie-but-did-nothing-114752">ABC inquiry finds board knew of trouble between Milne and Guthrie, but did nothing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Strong editorial leadership founded on independence liberates editors and journalists at every level to tell stories that matter to the public interest without looking over their shoulders fearful of politically inspired retribution.</p>
<p>There has never been a time in Australia’s modern history when there was a greater need for an editorially robust ABC.</p>
<p>In December 2018, Fairfax newspapers were <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-modern-tragedy-nine-fairfax-merger-a-disaster-for-quality-media-100584">swallowed up</a> into the Nine entertainment conglomerate, with consequences for their editorial quality that are yet to be seen.</p>
<p>Fairfax controlled about 20% of metropolitan daily newspaper circulation in Australia.</p>
<p>News Corp, which controls about two-thirds of this circulation, has morphed into a hybrid of news service and political propaganda machine, its usefulness as a news provider declining in proportion as its propagandising mission has grown.</p>
<p>Fairfax’s regional newspapers were <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/antony-catalano-buys-nine-s-regional-newspapers-for-115m-20190430-p51ih0.html">acquired last week</a> by a former Fairfax journalist and corporate executive, Antony Catalano, along with a financial backer in the form of Thorney Investment Group. </p>
<p>While that provides Australia with some sorely needed diversity in media ownership, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on journalism at the national level.</p>
<p>Without a strong ABC news and current affairs service, the fourth estate of Australia’s democracy would be severely diminished.</p>
<p>The appointment of a new chair and a new managing director means that two of the three salient features of the ABC’s post-Milne landscape are in place.</p>
<p>The third is the composition of the board as a whole. The surviving members came out badly from the majority report of the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/ABCInterferenceAllegations">Senate inquiry</a> into political interference in the ABC, which was published in April.</p>
<p>The report found that the catalogue of events leading up to the sacking of Guthrie and the resignation of Milne “may give rise to the perception that the ABC Board had not been sufficiently active in protecting either the ABC’s independence from political interference or its own integrity”.</p>
<p>What, if anything, Buttrose does about that remains to be seen.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116540/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>However, the problem of combining the managing director and editor-in-chief roles remains, and these must be separated to preserve editorial independence.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1037592018-09-24T05:51:23Z2018-09-24T05:51:23ZMichelle Guthrie’s stint at ABC helm had a key weakness: she failed to back the journalists<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237681/original/file-20180924-7728-1yxd4fv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A journalist prepares for a live cross after it was announced that ABC Managing Director Michelle Guthrie had been sacked by the board.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Peter Rae</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Michelle Guthrie’s departure as managing director of the ABC, while a shock, is not surprising.</p>
<p>In the face of sustained pressure from the government and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, she has seemed incapable of mounting a sustained and effective response.</p>
<p>And in this environment of hostility, ABC journalists have felt under siege.</p>
<p>As editor-in-chief – which comes with the managing director’s job – Guthrie was unable to give the kind of robust editorial leadership that journalists need if they are to report fearlessly and independently.</p>
<p>It was clear by the middle of this year that whatever qualities Guthrie brought to the job, editorial leadership was not one of them. Thus the ABC was at a crossroads. It had as its managing director and editor-in-chief a person with no journalistic background who had shown scant signs of understanding the impact of the federal government’s relentless bullying on the ABC’s editorial independence.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/constant-attacks-on-the-abc-will-come-back-to-haunt-the-coalition-government-98456">Constant attacks on the ABC will come back to haunt the Coalition government</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Then in June, Guthrie <a href="https://www.melbournepressclub.com/article/standing-up-for-the-abc">gave a speech</a> at the Melbourne Press Club in which she said Australians regard the ABC as a great national institution and deeply resent its being used as “a punching bag by narrow political, commercial or ideological interests”.</p>
<p>It was strong but it came late in the day. By then, the weakness in editorial leadership had filtered down the ranks, so that journalists making everyday decisions on news desks were looking over their shoulders.</p>
<p>One first-hand example makes the point. In May, when Barnaby Joyce accepted money – reportedly $150,000 – to go on Channel Nine with his partner Vikki Campion and talk about their affair, the ABC invited me to write a commentary on the ethics involved.</p>
<p>I wrote that by agreeing to take the money, Joyce had called into question his fitness for public office.</p>
<p>This was too strong for the ABC, and the article did not run. I was told that it was a sensitive time for the ABC’s relations with the government. Instead the article was <a href="https://theconversation.com/barnaby-joyces-decision-to-sell-his-story-is-a-breach-of-professional-ethics-97458">published by The Conversation</a> and then by The Age and an online newspaper, The Mandarin.</p>
<p>It showed the effect of the water-torture approach the government has taken to the ABC, cheered on by News Corp’s The Australian: grizzles about <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abc-admits-mistakes-over-cabinet-files-emma-alberici-controversies-20180227-p4z20t.html">the work of Emma Alberici</a> as economics editor, most of which turned out to be baseless; <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-28/fifield-bewildered-by-triple-j-hottest-100-decision/9202464">grievances about</a> Triple J’s changing the date of its Hottest 100 from Australia Day; <a href="https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/yassmin-abdelmagied-posts-a-controversial-anzac-day-callout-to-her-followers/news-story/304ca37489fa6a0a28ae1beb65894c2e">more grizzles</a> about Yassmin Abdel-Magied’s comments about Anzac Day.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"935076768200900608"}"></div></p>
<p>Strong editors do not sit back and let this happen. Unless there are clear and substantial errors of fact, strong editors stand by their journalists and hit back hard and publicly at unwarranted criticism.</p>
<p>Strong editors also stand up for their journalists’ right to express opinions, when those opinions are based on facts that are substantially true.</p>
<p>And they do this personally, not through bureaucratic complaints processes that dilute the authority of the editor’s voice.</p>
<p>There were signs early on in Guthrie’s tenure that she did not grasp the editorial side of the job.</p>
<p>Having given a <a href="http://about.abc.net.au/speeches/abc-news-dexterity-diversity-and-collaboration/">keynote address</a> at the New News Conference in Melbourne in October 2016, she took questions from the audience. A man asked her about some ABC story or another, to which she replied that she was not responsible for every story that appeared on the ABC. Well, the fact is that the editor-in-chief is indeed responsible for every story that appears. The journalists in the audience were stunned.</p>
<p>Later, when Guthrie showed up at <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/senate-estimates:-abc-grilled-over-removal-of-tax-cut-articles/9491936">Senate estimates committee hearings</a>, she would take along Alan Sunderland, who is in charge of editorial policies, to answer questions on the ABC’s journalism. This was simply not good enough. Guthrie was the editor-in-chief. She should have taken the questions – and the heat.</p>
<p>This state of affairs revealed a serious structural weakness in the ABC’s editorial leadership under her control. Sunderland had seemingly become de facto editor-in-chief, but without the ultimate authority. He is a Walkley Award-winning journalist with a strong news background, but highly qualified though he is, it is an untenable position.</p>
<p>Looking ahead, unless the ABC can find someone to combine the functions of managing director and editor-in-chief, as Guthrie’s predecessor Mark Scott did, it would be better to split the jobs.</p>
<p>This is the way good media outlets work. The editor-in-chief answers to the board through the managing director. The board and managing director answer to the shareholders – in the ABC’s case, the government.</p>
<p>The editor-in-chief is thus shielded in a way that enables him or her to make news decisions independent of corporate interests. It is called editorial independence and is the cornerstone of good journalism.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-abc-and-the-public-that-trusts-it-must-stand-firm-against-threats-to-its-editorial-independence-99784">Why the ABC, and the public that trusts it, must stand firm against threats to its editorial independence</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>When the editor-in-chief is independent, the spirit of independence filters down to that small army of journalists making everyday decisions. They don’t look over their shoulder.</p>
<p>All that matters is that the stories are worth telling, that the reporting is accurate and fair, that commentaries are based on facts, and that stories are treated on the basis of their news value, and not on other considerations.</p>
<p>The ABC has announced that the acting managing director is David Anderson, who is currently Director, Entertainment and Specialist. This covers “broadcast television networks and associated services, radio music networks, podcasts and specialist radio content”.</p>
<p>Although he has nearly 30 years’ experience with the ABC, he has no background in journalism either, so it looks as if Sunderland will just have to soldier on.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103759/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One of the reasons the managing director failed was that she did not understand the journalism she was overseeing, and that weakness filtered down the ranks.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.