I dislike the use of expletive-ridden abuse and hateful criticism on social media. However, Chris Uhlman does not report objectively, far too often offering extremely superficial, flawed, and even apparently intentionally biased views.
Virginia Trioli is guilty of a similar inability to report objectively, as are many others.
Chris Uhlman,Virginia Trioli, and others will, of course, have their own take on issues and they are entitled to do so. However, they represent themselves and are represented by the ABC as being objective reporters who present a balanced view of issues. This is not the case and that is where the problem lies.
The ABC, in my view, does give relatively balanced coverage overall. Sometimes it may lean further in one direction than another but taken across the board, it does a fair job of presenting a range of views.
There is, however, a difference between presenting a view by a presenter who is openly and honestly acknowledged to report with a bias towards a particular perspective, political or otherwise, and that same skewed perspective being offered as an “objective” or “balanced’ view.
The ABC & its presenters need to openly declare their biases so that their integrity is maintained.
Yes, the organisation and most presenters of political, social or current affairs, etc. will still receive some unfair and unsupportable criticism from individuals who are themselves substantially biased and/or incapable of rational understanding or interpretation of evidence. I doubt, given the degree of corruption, lying, deceit, self-gratification and poor behaviour of many of our significant political, social, sporting, and religious models, that this situation is likely to change in the near future.
It is a sad reflection of recent government policy that the ABC has been not only starved of adequate funding but also attacked by a right wing government that, whilst having most of the wealth, influence and media on its side, still prefers to censor or silence any negative criticism of its actions. The reduction of funding and the threat of further reductions in funding, as well as the appointment of a right-wing CEO are clearly aimed at turning the general ethos of the ABC in a particular direction. As in most organisations, those that do not follow the company line receive the admonition that, “if you don’t like it, you can always leave” – and many have done so, either voluntarily or, in some cases, through management decision and manipulation.
The real issue here is not that of Chris Uhlman’s hurt pride but that of the government deliberately interfering in a statutory institution that is intended to have independence and represent the variety of views of the population in a fair and objective way. Views that are extreme or that appear to run counter to evidence, cover up flaws, or unfairly serve the interests only of a tiny minority of the population should be seriously challenged, just as the pseudo-expertise of regular panellists and commentators, such as Jane Caro, Kate Carnell and Greg Sheridan and a hundred-and-one others should be exposed such that their credibility or lack of it is clear.
Unfortunately, many of the most credible, objective and fair reporting staff that were a hallmark of the ABC, are now absent. Given a CEO who thinks that the ABC needs more “reality” tv shows, it is not hard to recognise that the white ants are gaining traction and that, if this government has its way, the ABC will not just be neutered, as at present, but will be unmercifully sacrificed to right wing interests who wish to avoid serious scrutiny.
After row over coverage of South Australia power failure, political editor says he stands up to a ‘bag of intolerant bastards’ that criticise him from both sides