The media’s broken mirror exposes Australia’s racial divides and the ABC’s lack of integrity

Strengthening the support for the ABC is essential for safeguarding the broader democratic values of freedom of expression and informed public debate in Australia.

In a recent address at the Sydney Writers Festival, senior ABC journalist Laura Tingle made a comment that Australia is a “racist country,” setting off a chain of reactions that exposed deep divisions within the nation’s media and political landscapes. Tingle’s comments, made during a discussion on immigration, suggested that the political discourse led by certain leaders such as leader of the opposition Peter Dutton was not only divisive but actively harmful, giving “license to be abused” to those who “look different.” Her assertion highlights a persistent challenge in Australian society—how it deals with issues of race and the legacy of its policies.

The backlash against Tingle—and the ABC—was swift and severe, particularly from conservative corners and News Corporation. Figures such as Sophie Ellsworth from Sky News quickly positioned Tingle’s remarks as evidence of a supposed broader problem within the ABC—impartiality—and damage to its credibility, and then went on to frame the situation as a “nightmare” for ABC chair Kim Williams, amid further calls to defund the ABC and privatise it for commercial interests.

Tingle’s comments rekindled discussions on Australia’s historical and contemporary issues with racism, and it’s very clear that Australia does have a significantly racist and unjust history—the White Australia Policy, Indigenous exclusion under the doctrine of terra nullius, and more contemporary examples of social exclusion and systemic institutionalised bias are prime examples of this. Once again, this situation highlights an Australia at odds with itself—caught between its purported ideals of egalitarianism and the stark realities of its historical and ongoing racial tensions.

This discourse is not only about whether Australia is or isn’t racist—it’s about recognising the multifaceted nature of racism. It’s not just the overt discrimination, but also the subtle, systemic kinds that shape public policy and everyday interactions. Tingle’s assertion, and the polarised responses to it, reveal a society still dealing with its past, its present, and its future: trying to reconcile a contentious history with aspirations for a more inclusive nation. This, however, is further complicated by political imperatives that often prioritise immediate, palpable gains over deep, structural reforms.

In this heated debate, the role of the media becomes crucially significant. As gatekeepers of information and framers of discourse, journalists and their platforms shape public perception and understanding. The reaction to Tingle’s comments highlights that balance they must maintain between delivering hard truths and keeping the maniacal conservative media at bay, whose behaviour in being able to find and magnify material they don’t like—even if it at a relatively obscure public event—and then go on to call for punishment and retribution, is akin to a Soviet-era spy agency.

The fallout from Tingle’s comments—purely concocted by News Corporation—is a microcosm of a larger national debate on race, identity, and the role of the media in shaping political discourse. It encapsulates the tensions between freedom of expression and the responsibilities of public broadcasters, between historical acknowledgment and contemporary reality, and between the diverse elements of an increasingly pluralistic society.

The ABC’s struggle with ideological pressures

The tension between the ABC and News Corporation highlights a broader ideological battleground within Australian media and politics. The ABC, historically perceived as a bastion of independent journalism—although it could be argued that with the continuous interference from the Liberal Party during their time in government, it has been less than independent in recent years—now finds itself increasingly scrutinised and attacked by News Corporation, a media conglomerate often aligned with conservative interests, including those of the Liberal Party. This scrutiny manifests not just in critiques of content but in calls for drastic actions such as defunding or sacking journalists who deviate from certain conservative social and political lines approved by News Corporation, as seen in the case of Laura Tingle.

This scenario typifies how News Corporation leverages its media influence to shape public discourse and, by extension, political agendas. It portrays a media landscape where News Corporation rarely reports news in a factual manner but actively participates in the political process, aggressively setting the terms of debate and determining what is permissible discourse.

The reaction from the ABC’s management to the controversy surrounding Tingle is telling. Rather than robustly defending the principles of free speech and the diversity of opinions that a national broadcaster should embody, the response from the ABC’s director of news, Justin Stevens, was tepid and bordering on apologetic. This capitulation points to a deeper issue within the ABC: a growing concern about offending conservative powers and, therefore, reporting in a manner that avoids offending these conservative powers. Such conservatism not only contradicts the ABC’s charter, which mandates it to provide informative, educational, and entertaining content that reflects Australia’s cultural diversity, but it also hinders the broadcaster’s ability to engage in and foster meaningful national debates.

In the context of such controversies, it becomes evident that there is an uneven playing field in terms of what is considered acceptable commentary. While right-leaning perspectives, even controversial ones, often receive a platform on ABC programs such as Insiders or Q&A, progressive views like Tingle’s are met with fierce opposition and demands for censorship. This dichotomy undermines the ABC’s mandate to reflect a plurality of views and suggests a troubling drift towards a more conservative, restrictive media environment, influenced heavily by external pressures from powerful media players like News Corporation.

The stark contrast in how different ideological perspectives are treated points to a larger cultural and political division within Australia. If the ABC yields to pressures to conform to a narrower view of acceptable discourse, it risks losing its integrity as a public broadcaster committed to impartiality and diversity, an integrity which has perhaps already been lost. Such an outcome would not only diminish the ABC’s role in Australian society but also impoverish the public discourse necessary for a vibrant democracy.

Ultimately, the treatment of Tingle and the broader implications for ABC illustrates the significant problems that exist for Australian media and jounalism. The challenge lies in balancing a commitment to impartial reporting and a diverse range of opinions against the backdrop of intense media scrutiny and political polarisation. How the ABC navigates this will be crucial for its future role in shaping an informed, engaged, and inclusive Australian public.

ABC’s lack of defence of its own journalists threatens press freedom

The recurring issue of the ABC not adequately defending its journalists against external attacks, particularly from entities such as News Corporation, raises profound questions about the broadcaster’s role and responsibilities in Australia’s media landscape. The cases of Stan Grant, Yassmin Abdel-Magied, Emma Alberici, Nick Ross and now Laura Tingle illustrate a worrying pattern where ABC journalists facing criticism or controversy from conservative quarters—often sparked by their candid assessments of sensitive topics—are left to fend for themselves. This perceived lack of support not only affects the individual journalists but also sends a chilling message to others within the organisation about the limits of editorial freedom and the potential consequences of inciting the ire of powerful external critics.

This situation is further exacerbated by the nature of the criticisms often levied at ABC journalists by conservative media outlets. The attacks are not just professional critiques but are frequently ad hominem, sometimes straying into the personal, and the departure of Stan Grant and the overseas relocation of Yassmin Abdel-Magied after sustained campaigns against them are cases in point. Both were prominent figures who contributed significantly to public discourse in Australia, yet faced overwhelming pressure largely as a result of their visibility and the uncomfortable truths they were willing to articulate.

Laura Tingle stands out in this narrative not just for her role as a senior journalist and a member of the ABC board but also for her forthrightness in discussing Australian politics and societal issues. Her statement of calling Australia a “racist country”—reflect a willingness to confront Australia’s historical and contemporary challenges head-on. Yet, the pattern of ABC responses, or lack thereof, to the subsequent fallout suggests a continuity of the broadcaster’s feckless approach, prioritising organisational safety and conservative interests, over journalistic integrity.

The fundamental issue here extends beyond individual controversies to encompass the broader role of the ABC as a national broadcaster funded by the public. When the ABC fails to protect its journalists from orchestrated external attacks, it risks undermining its own credibility and authority as an independent voice in Australian media. This perceived vulnerability is especially concerning in an era where public trust in media is both more crucial and more fragile than ever.

While the focus has been on the weak and tepid response from ABC management, including the director of news and the managing director, criticism must also be directed towards the Minister for Communications, Michelle Rowland, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, for their lack of support. As a public broadcaster, the ultimate responsibility rests with government, in this case, Rowland and Albanese. However, they have allowed the continuous attacks from News Corporation to fester without offering any support for the ABC. Why are they so willing to allow the reputation of ABC to be trashed so comprehensively?

The manner in which these controversies are handled also reflects broader societal divisions over what constitutes acceptable discourse. The term “woke,” as used pejoratively by critics of the ABC and its journalists, exemplifies how certain perspectives are dismissed as overly progressive or politically correct, marginalising voices that challenge the status quo. This delegitimisation of dissenting voices undercuts the very purpose of a public broadcaster in a democratic society, which is to foster a well-rounded public dialogue that includes all perspectives, even those that may be uncomfortable or unpopular.

For the ABC to fulfill its mandate and maintain its integrity as a public broadcaster, it must not only provide a platform for diverse voices but also vigorously defend those voices when they are challenged. This involves a more robust and principled stance in support of its journalists, who should feel assured that their employer backs them when they are targeted for fulfilling their role. Strengthening this support is essential not only for the personal wellbeing of its journalists but also for safeguarding the broader democratic values of freedom of expression and informed public debate in Australia.