Dear ABC...

My posts are too infrequent these days, but here's a letter I just sent to the ABC, which I'll treat as open.

I am a regular listener to ABC RN. I recently read the transcript of “A narrative for a long war”, Background Briefing, 20 August 2006. I wish to express concern about balance in this program.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2006/1716276.htm#, viewed 15 November 2006

The program deals with public relations activities by the US and its opponents in the Middle East. I was disappointed by the range of views presented by this program.

Comment was given by -

• John Rendon – “a PR strategist who does most of his work for the Pentagon” (US)
• Kylie Morris – “Channel 4 reporter” (UK)
• John Brown – “former US diplomat who resigned from the State Department over the decision to invade Iraq” (US)
• William Mccants – “researcher at the Centre for Combating Terrorism … [a]t the US Military Academy, West Point” (US)
• Dr Steven Corman – “in charge of the CSC, the Consortium for Strategic Communication at Arizona State University” (US)
• Mark Lynch – blogger (as Abu Aardvark) and political scientist (presumably US)
• Adel Iskandar – “Egyptian academic … from the American University in Washington, D.C.” (Egyptian/US)
  

Quotes were presented from -

• Donald Rumsfeld – US Secretary of Defense, extended comment from a speech
• Ted Sorenson – “President Kennedy's speech writer”, one question to Donald Rumsfeld
• GIMF “Global Islamic Media Front” – quotes of Shahzad Tanweer, quotes of responses to Rumsfeld
• “The management of savagery” (book) – readings
• US Army officer/s
• Tony Blair (GB), Condoleeza Rice (US), Pres Bashir Assad (Syria), Pres Ahmadinjehad (Iran)
  

Note this list does not include people from the Middle East, other than a US-resident and US-employed Egyptian, and the strangely similar quotes of Blair, Rice, Assad and Ahmadinjehad about creation of a “new Middle East”. Despite the similarity of their statements, I expect they hold very different underlying world views. Otherwise, the words from Middle Eastern sources were quotes rather than comments, and were subject to comment from Western participants.

So, I ask -

• where are non-Western world views displayed in this program
• (evidenced here but observed more broadly) why does the ABC seek British and US commentary on such matters, and treat this as independent commentary

I feel that Australian media tends to have a limited view of the world. I feel this is especially evident in socio-economic and political matters, but is probably discernable in other areas. This may or may not be a conscious decision, but it is an easy trap. I feel this happens because -

• we are English-speakers in a world where English is the lingua-franca, and so gravitate to opinions in our own language
• we are closely associated with the US and Britain in politics and culture
• as the pre-eminent world power and (arguably) centre of empire, the US inevitably tends to a parochial view (it’s not the first: vide “All roads lead to Rome”) and this is exacerbated by the US self-vision as the “indispensible nation”
• our own history and world-view is Anglo-American and is shared with this major world power
  

Over 20 years ago, I was resident in non-English speaking Europe. I was interested to find a broader world-view. I interpreted this as a culture which needs to understand other languages to exist in the world, and must enunciate, rather than borrow, its world-view. Returning to Australia was a lesson in a shrinking awareness and a limited vision. And thus, I consider that in a practical sense English is an advantage, but in a cultural and idea-related sense, it is a limitation.

In summary, this approach is misleading and can serve political or ideological ends. But that is not all. It is also potentially dangerous because we fail to test our ideas and assumptions.

After years of listening, I have great faith in the honest attempts of ABC staff, and Background Briefing staff in particular, to intelligently seek out a fair approximation to the truth. So this letter raises issues of balance in one program, but is not a general attack on BB or RN. Rather, it seeks to highlight the limited vision that affects out best efforts.

In a similar way, I hope the Board and management of the ABC are honest in their attempts to support effective, demanding, honest, truth-seeking broadcasting. Sadly, the indications, at least concerning the Board, seem to point in the other direction.

Yours sincerely