David Anderson’s resignation as ABC managing director could be a watershed moment for the broadcaster

The resignation of David Anderson as managing director of the ABC has the potential to be a watershed moment in the history of the national broadcaster.

It offers the opportunity to reset the organisation’s editorial culture by facing down the relentless attacks on its journalists from right-wing political interests, principally Liberal-National Party politicians and their mouthpieces at News Corporation.

It may also mean a revision of the five-year plan^[1] inaugurated last year, a significant part of which was a transition from a combination of traditional and digital platforms to what has been called an “integrated digital operation” in which traditional radio broadcasting in particular would play a smaller role.

The role of managing director also incorporates the role of editor-in-chief, and Anderson’s legacy should be assessed by reference to both.

Read more: Kim Williams is right to criticise how the ABC covers news, but there's a change he needs to make to fix it^[2]

He came into the job in 2018, in the wake of a crisis surrounding the ABC’s editorial independence.

The previous managing director, Michelle Guthrie, had been sacked^[3] over perceived failures of management. But just before the axe fell, she circulated a dossier to the board containing an email in which the then chair Justin Milne reportedly directed her^[4] to “get rid of” the ABC’s chief economics correspondent at the time, Emma Alberici. Her dossier also included notes she had taken of a telephone call with Milne, which recorded him as telling her to “shoot^[5]” the ABC’s then political editor Andrew Probyn. These revelations forced Milne to resign.

This issue of editorial independence has cast a long shadow over Anderson’s tenure as editor-in-chief.

He said in a post-resignation interview on ABC News TV that his tenure has been marked by difficult challenges. He did not spell them out, but it is clear from events that have taken place on his watch that one of them has been continuing pressure on ABC journalists from a range of external sources.

There have been times when Anderson has stood up strongly in defence of his journalists. One notable example was when he defended Louise Milligan in the face of fierce criticism from the Morrison government over her 4 Corners program Inside the Canberra Bubble, which lifted the lid on sexual misconduct in Parliament House.

But there have been other times when he has not stood up, or not done so soon enough. An example was the failure to defend Stan Grant when he was attacked for his contribution to a panel discussion about the role of the monarchy and its effect on Aboriginal people, on the occasion of King Charles’ coronation.

A deeper problem is the cowed editorial culture exemplified by the recent case of Laura Tingle, who is not only the chief political correspondent for the 7.30 program but also the staff-elected member of the ABC board.

At the Sydney Writers’ Festival, Tingle had said in a panel discussion that had nothing to do with the ABC that Australia was a racist country, always had been and it was very depressing. She came under sustained attack from News Corporation, and at Senate estimates shortly thereafter Anderson was questioned about this by Liberal senator and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson.

Anderson’s response was ambiguous^[6]. He said he was not embarrassed by what Tingle had said but wished it hadn’t happened.

Tingle put an end to the episode by issuing an apology, and on hearing of Anderson’s decision to resign made a statement thanking him for standing up for his people.

However, there have been other cases where the culture has not been robust enough. Antoinette Lattouf, now found by the Fair Work Commission to have been sacked over a social media post drawing attention to a human rights report on Gaza; Nicole Chvastek terminated as part of a settlement after a complaint of bias from a National Party MP, although the complaint was formally dismissed.

Ambiguity is not a strong weapon in an editor-in-chief’s arsenal. Williams, who took over as chair in March, has shown no hesitation in taking the fight up to News Corp in particular, whose relentless criticism of the ABC and individuals like Tingle he has called^[7] “unbalanced” and “fairly unhinged”.

In his role as managing director, however, Anderson has proved to be the right person to stabilise the organisation after the chaos of the Guthrie-Milne period. He has also steered the ABC through the repeated challenges of the digital revolution, although whether his navigational skills are appreciated by Williams is an open question.

Notably, Williams has reversed the strategic decision to start reducing the ABC’s radio networks as part of the shift to digital. Anderson said last year that the audience on some AM services such as Radio National and NewsRadio would be so small “that we’ll look at rationalising that over time.”

Williams has taken the opposite view^[8]:

It is not available to the ABC to simply withdraw a variety of broadcast services, like for example Radio National or ABC Classic or Triple J. They are part of our responsibility.

He has also been critical of the ABC’s online news choices, saying these are prioritising lifestyle stories over hard news.

None of these issues may have anything to do with Anderson’s decision to resign: he has said that Williams tried to talk him out of it. However, it would be naïve not to at least draw attention to them, especially since Anderson has given no reason beyond a vague statement that it is time for change.

Indeed it does seem that a climate of change is occurring at the ABC. How far it will go is unclear, but a more robust editorial culture, preferably led by an editor-in-chief not encumbered by the responsibilities of a managing director, would be strongly in the national interest.

References

1. ^{^} five-year plan (www.abc.net.au)
2. ^{^} Kim Williams is right to criticise how the ABC covers news, but there's a change he needs to make to fix it (theconversation.com)
3. ^{^} been sacked (www.theguardian.com)
4. ^{^} directed her (www.smh.com.au)
5. ^{^} shoot (www.smh.com.au)
6. ^{^} ambiguous (www.smh.com.au)
7. ^{^} he has called (www.theguardian.com)
8. ^{^} the opposite view (www.theguardian.com)