Media bias in Australia and the futile balancing act

What is alarming is the fact that there seems to be no indication that the trend of poor political reporting will reverse anytime soon.

Concerns have been mounting regarding the performance of the Australian mainstream media and its commitment to balanced and unbiased reporting. Rather than addressing these concerns head-on, the media landscape in Australia is persistently tilting towards right-wing conservative interests, exacerbating the slow descent of legacy media into irrelevance. What is more alarming is the fact that there seems to be no indication that this trend will reverse anytime soon.

One prominent example of this situation has developed at the public broadcaster, the ABC, where several weeks ago, it was revealed that the ABC’s approach to “balance” is the aim to provide equal time to “both sides” of a debate. While, on the surface, this may sound like a fair practice, it also means equal time for experts and non-experts alike, a humanitarian and a charlatan, a voice of reason with the voice of the irrationalist. While it might appear to be “good television” – and even then, that’s not so clear – the public is left frustrated, less informed, especially when they’re provided with expert information, muddied with uninformed and misguided opinion.

Another issue for the media lies in its inability to reflect upon its own behaviour and adapt to a changing landscape, and it continues to behave like a closed shop, seemingly oblivious to its waning relevance. This issue was brought to the forefront when ABC journalist Leigh Sales presented the Andrew Olle Memorial Lecture, an annual lecture on the role and future of the media. While Sales is just one journalist within the industry – and the point is not to focus on the one figure within the media – the lecture exemplified many of the problems plaguing the media as a whole. Surprisingly, a significant portion of the lecture’s time was dedicated to an anecdote about incorrectly parking in ABC Chair Ita Buttrose’s car park space at the ABC, followed by a hagiography of Ita Buttrose, which reinforced an impression of the industry being “matey” and incestuous.

Sales defended the media’s general performances by emphasising the journalists’ shared commitment, inclination and “bias” towards a “cracking story”, where journalists are driven by the pursuit of a great story, regardless of political affiliations or social media backlash. However, this ultimately leads to a focus on sensationalism and competition between journalists for chasing “the scoop”, and often overshadows the need for responsible journalism and public interest.

The media’s fixation on the “cracking story” over public interest stories reveals a broader problem within the Australian media landscape. The media, especially mainstream outlets, appear to be too introspective, failing to adequately address the concerns and interests of the wider public. While Sales acknowledged valid points during the Andrew Olle lecture, the overarching bias towards sensationalism and competition overshadows the need for balanced and informative reporting.

The consequences of this media bias are starkly evident. Traditional newspapers are struggling, often serving as tools to attack the government or promote the opposition, rather than fulfilling their primary function of informing the public. This decline in trust and relevance of the mainstream media is a cause for concern, particularly because an informed and engaged citizenry is a cornerstone of democracy.

As the mainstream media’s influence wanes, there is a risk that a shrewd government may circumvent traditional media channels, further limiting access to critical information. Smaller independent media outlets may have a role to play in filling this gap, but their capacity to do so remains uncertain. There is an unspoken need within the Australian populace for a robust, impartial, and influential media presence, but, regrettably, this need remains unmet.

Comparing the quality of journalism in international media outlets, such as Al Jazeera, the New York Times, and the international Guardian, reveals a stark contrast. These outlets are often lauded for their in-depth reporting and commitment to providing diverse perspectives. In contrast to some Australian media, they prioritise news over agendas, seeking to inform rather than persuade. In the midst of these challenges and shortcomings in the Australian media landscape, it is essential to examine how media bias impacts public perception, democracy, and the role of the media as a whole.

The shift towards “infotainment” means the pursuit of quality news goes missing

As the Australian mainstream media continues to struggle with its issues of bias and relevance, an alarming transformation has taken place. The news landscape has shifted from a primary focus on informing the public to one that increasingly prioritises entertainment and engagement. The consequence? An audience that is switching off from traditional news sources in search of more meaningful and informative content.

It’s important to recognise that nobody is advocating for dull and monotonous news delivery, as a dynamic and engaging presentation of the news is crucial to keep the audience’s attention. However, the problem lies in the content itself and the quality of news reporting. The line between news and commercial interests has become increasingly blurred, leading to a decline in the substance and credibility of the stories being presented.

Many audiences are seeking genuine news reports, not just entertaining anecdotes or sensationalised narratives. This shift in viewer preferences is evident in the growing number of Australians turning to alternative news sources. Many are now looking to international outlets like CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera, particularly for their coverage of international events such as the Palestine conflict. The internet has made it easier than ever to access diverse and high-quality news from around the world and, with this increased competition, it’s unclear why local news haven’t improved their depth of quality to match the alternatives that are available to their audiences.

The primary driver behind this shift is the perception that legacy media outlets in Australia offer a limited perspective and lack the depth and diversity of reporting that viewers seek. If traditional media wishes to regain its audience and regain their trust, it must recognise the need for substantive and unbiased news coverage. Quality should take precedence over sensationalism or “cracking yarns,” as they are often referred to in the industry.

The term “cracking yarns” holds a special place in Australian culture as tales of adventure and intrigue, often woven with exaggerations for dramatic effect. While these stories have their place in entertainment and folklore, they should not be part of a serious news bulletin. There is a clear distinction between sharing fascinating stories and responsible journalism and audiences are increasingly aware of this distinction and demands news that provides them with a deep understanding of current events, not just entertainment.

A fundamental shift has occurred in the way Australians view their news outlets. The era when the 7PM ABC News was considered the “gold standard” for television news and factual information is fading into memory. What was once a reliable source for straightforward reporting has now evolved into a mixture of lifestyle features, entertainment highlights, and sports coverage, with the occasional nod to government actions. The emphasis on balance, while essential, sometimes results in the presentation of views that do not necessarily contribute to informed public discourse.

For instance, the practice of inviting government and opposition spokespeople, even when one party’s representative is not well-versed on the topic, has raised concerns about the media’s role in shaping public perception. An infamous example was the appearance of renowned physicist Brian Cox on the ABC’s Q&A, where he was paired with the climate change skeptic, Senator Malcolm Roberts, to provide “balance”. The ensuing interaction did little to advance the audience’s understanding of the subject matter and instead led to frustration among viewers.

As Australians increasingly turn to alternative sources for their news, the mainstream media faces a formidable challenge. Regaining public trust and rebuilding their reputation as reliable news providers will require a return to the core principles of journalism: accuracy, impartiality, and a commitment to delivering the unvarnished truth.

Imbalanced coverage and its impact on audience trust

One of the prevailing issues in Australian media, particularly at the ABC, is the notion of balance. While the idea of balance in journalism is a fundamental principle, there is a growing concern that it has been taken to an extreme. The media, especially the public broadcaster, appears to have replaced the quest for high-quality reporting with an obsession for equal time given to government and opposition representatives.

This recent shift in “balanced” media coverage at the ABC can be traced back to May 2022, following the Labor Party’s election victory. Since then, a more unusual approach to balance has emerged, where Labor government spokespeople and Liberal–National opposition figures are granted equal time, irrespective of what the issues are, and the result is a distortion of the role and responsibilities of these two groups. Government ministers and opposition leaders are not in equal positions; their roles and responsibilities are radically different.

This emphasis on equal time for both sides of the political spectrum seems to be unique to the Australian media landscape – and, of course, is never a balance afforded to the Labor Party when they sit in opposition – and stands in stark contrast to international news coverage. In many countries, the focus remains firmly on the government of the day, with opposition leaders receiving limited coverage, generally reserved for addressing key issues or crises – this is not so much to drown out an opposition, but is an approach that reflects the reality that it is the government that is responsible for making decisions and governing the nation. The Labor Party is the government, and holds 78 seats in parliament; the Liberal and National parties are not the government, and hold 58 seats. These political entities are not in equal positions, so why they are given equal media coverage?

The consequences of this skewed focus are evident in the decline of audience engagement with key programs such as Q&A, ABC Insiders and 7.30. Audiences appear to have grown weary of the constant conflict-driven reporting and the overrepresentation of opposition viewpoints. The perception of one-sided conservative support by mainstream media outlets has led viewers to seek alternative sources for their news and political information.

Audiences have been gradually disengaging from legacy media for some time, but it seems that the media industry has been slow to recognise the extent of the problem. This downward spiral may continue unless significant changes are implemented.

The issue of balance, in essence, lies in the very concept of what constitutes good journalism. University-educated and cadetship journalists should be well-versed in the importance of rigorous research and balanced reporting, where historical evidence informs the story. The best instances are when shows such as Q&A feature panels of experts with diverse perspectives and specialties, fostering a rich and educational discussion.

On the other hand, the worst instances are when individuals with no expertise or qualifications in the subject matter are invited to speak, diminishing the quality of the conversation and failing to provide valuable insights. This approach is emblematic of the media’s need to prioritise informed, expert opinions over entertainment value.

Efforts to address these concerns are seemingly underway, including changes to the ABC board and culture within the ABC. But the public broadcaster is just one media outlet. However, beyond structural changes, there is a growing call to acknowledge and promote journalists who consistently deliver high-quality work. Listening to those who excel in their craft may be the path to regain trust and recover audience engagement.

Media’s role in shaping political discourse and consequences

The challenges facing Australian media are not confined to a single outlet but permeate the entire mainstream and legacy media landscape. The pervasive tendency to prioritise the idea of “balance” over the pursuit of equality in news coverage has far-reaching consequences. It not only erodes public discourse but also has a profound impact on the political climate.

The phenomenon of the “cracking story” or the “yarn” is not unique to Australia and has played a significant role in shaping political landscapes in other parts of the world. This approach gave rise to leaders like Donald Trump in the United States, Boris Johnson in the United Kingdom, and Scott Morrison in Australia. These are politicians who have capitalised on the media’s penchant for sensationalism and entertainment, often at the expense of substantive and critical reporting.

The media’s complicity in enabling these “crackpot populist politicians” reflects a deeply entrenched issue in journalism. There is a disturbing tendency to amplify sensationalism and sensational figures for the sake of higher ratings, viewership, and readership. This focus on what generates immediate attention rather than what informs the public contributes to the decay in public discourse.

The consequences of this decay are profound and extend into the political sphere. A media that prioritises entertainment over information inadvertently encourages political leaders to manipulate their messages and prioritise showmanship over substance. Such leaders can employ this strategy to enact policies that are not in the public’s best interest.

This distortion of priorities within the media has fueled calls to reduce government scrutiny and regulation. While some advocate for less government intervention for a wide range of reasons related to freedom of the media, it is essential to recognise that a strong and independent media serves as a crucial check on power. When the media prioritises public interest and critical analysis over sensationalism, it becomes a powerful force for accountability.

A strong media should indeed be something to be feared, not by the people, but political leaders and those in power. It should be the guardian of truth, holding leaders accountable, and safeguarding the public’s right to be informed. Unfortunately, in Australia, not enough people recognise the crucial role the media should play and often fail to appreciate the importance of a strong and independent media in maintaining a healthy democracy.

The media landscape in Australia is facing a significant crisis, driven by a preference for sensationalism and entertainment over informative, balanced reporting. The consequences of this trend reach beyond media outlets; they impact public discourse and political decision-making. It is imperative for media organisations to re-evaluate their priorities, emphasise substantive reporting, and encourage critical analysis. Only through these changes can the media regain the trust and engagement of the Australian public and fulfill its vital role in a healthy democracy.