DOES it really matter if every host of the ABC's Media Watch since its inception has left-of-centre sympathies?
Or if all the ABC political programs, not least Insiders, show an unmistakable tilt towards having more left-of-centre participants than right-of-centre ones, sometimes by a factor of 3:1?
Surely a professional journalist or broadcaster can put aside their personal views and values and adopt the apolitical, disinterested vantage when it comes to these shows?
Or perhaps not. Perhaps this sort of "bias is in the eye of the beholder" line, the regular riposte of ABC director Mark Scott to allegations of one-sidedness and anti-Coalition bias, is too cute by half. So let's consider a couple of analogies.
Here's one from my line of work. And let me stipulate that all top judges see themselves as independent, impartial public servants whose job it is to disinterestedly apply the law. But conceding all that, who would be happy if every top judge were selected by only one side of politics?
Does anyone doubt that if, say, the Labor Party got to pick every top judge that we would end up with a different set of rulings about how to read our Constitution and our federal statutes than if about half of these judges were chosen by Labor and half by the Coalition?
Of course we would. Because all of us bring to the table certain core beliefs that influence how we see and decide the borderline cases. Probably not the clear-cut ones. But the debatable ones, such as which political news to emphasise and discuss, which stories to focus on and which aspects of polls to lead with.
So the way the ABC selects its top hosts and participants for its big-ticket current affairs shows, choosing them overwhelmingly from one side of the political spectrum, means that we end up with less balance than if they were picked the way top judges are, with both sides of politics getting about even input.
Unless you think journalists are inherently more even-handed, impartial and apolitical than judges. But who aside from Scott could say that with a straight face? (Hint: If you can you should move to Los Angeles and look for acting work.)
Or imagine that the Wallabies had yearly Tests against the All Blacks but that nine years out of 10 the referee was from New Zealand. Of course, the referee has an obligation to be even-handed. But because of those debatable little calls (which in rugby union can encompass just about everything), we want not just someone assuring us of his impartiality, we want the appearance of impartiality (which is why the referee in real life will come from some third country).
And that's where Scott and the ABC let us down so badly. When it comes to appearances the track record at the ABC looks appalling.
Personally, I think there is real bias at the ABC. But let's say I'm wrong. Why not at least improve the awful appearances and pick, say, at least one conservative host of Media Watch (ever) or make sure that exactly half of those who appear on Insiders have a lineage on each side of politics?
Remember, this is not a private broadcaster that relies on advertisers and in a market economy decides for itself what views it wishes to appeal to. This is a publicly funded broadcaster with a statutory obligation to be even-handed. It spends billions of taxpayer dollars in a way that millions of Australians think is biased (when it comes to current affairs).
There's an easy way to show how pathetically unpersuasive are the ABC's arguments. Imagine every appointment to the top ABC news shows is given only to a right-of-centre person with Coalition links (as so many present ones have Labor links).
How long do you think it would be before there would be howls of protest from the other side of politics?
And how long do you think Scott would wait before doing something about it?
