It’s often said that all journos are fans of ABC’s Media Watch — until they’re on it. For the record, I’m not much of a fan, but I will give host Paul Barry credit that he occasionally takes his ABC colleagues to task.
And they do not like it. Not one bit.
Especially when Barry hints at what everyone already knows: the ABC is too often biased and captured by interest groups.
Imagine, for example, the ABC paying thousands of dollars to Greenpeace and winning prizes for running stories attacking the fossil fuel industry. Or paying money to the Australian Republican Movement and being rewarded for a series criticising the monarchy.
How would that be defensible or impartial?
Yet, that is exactly what the ABC does in regard to “transgender” activist group, ACON, and the AIDS Council of New South Wales.
As Barry points out, the BBC and Channel 4 cut ties with UK “rainbow” activists, Stonewall, precisely to preserve its editorial independence. A BBC radio report found numerous instances of BBC internal policy and editorial output that appeared to breach the corporation’s own impartiality guidelines, as a direct result of its relationship with Stonewall.
But according to one BBC journalist, Samantha Smith, there was still a problem: that the BBC was in bed with a lobby group. And paying money to it and seeking its approval.
Media Watch pointed out such glaring biases as that the ABC failed to cover the closure of the controversial children’s gender clinic, Tavistock. It also barely reported the High Court case against the clinic from de-transitioner Keira Bell.
We also noted that the ABC had ignored legitimate medical debate about caution and safeguards in treating gender dysphoria in children.
ABC Australia
The imputation is clear: Australia’s taxpayer-funded broadcaster was so desperate to earn its little rainbow star from an extremist lobby group that it abandoned its statutory and ethical obligations of impartial journalism.
So, how do ABC journalists react when they’re caught out? The same as they always do: unconvincing denial.
An episode of Media Watch which canvasses whether the ABC’s coverage of transgender issues has been influenced by the broadcaster’s corporate partnership with an LGBTQ community group has angered journalists in the broadcaster’s news division.
The Guardian
Also, as usual, the ABC journos decided that the best form of defence is offence, calling “anti-trans voices” “far-right entities”, and whining about alleged “acts of violence”. No proof is given of the latter, of course, because, as the “Trans Day of Remembrance” were forced to admit, to their embarrassment, there was none.
But, then, when has evidence ever mattered to an ABC journalist before?
