Sarah Ferguson’s interview with Joe Hockey: Bias is in the eye of the beholder

“One of the chief Functions of a television critic is to stay at home and watch the programmes on an ordinary domestic receiver, just as his readers do. If he goes to official previews, he will meet producers and directors, start understanding their problems, and find himself paying the inevitable price for free sandwiches. A critic who does not keep well clear of the World of the Media will soon lose his sting. He might also begin harbouring delusions about his capacity to modify official policy.”
Sorry for the long intro, but that was Clive James in the preface to his book, Visions Before Midnight: Television criticism from The Observer 1972-76 – his advice guiding my time as a TV critic for The Australian newspaper in the early 1980s.
Born in the Sydney suburb of Kogarah, Clive James was, and still is, one of the best critics in the history of television. His weekly columns for The Observer from 1972-1982 were must reading, and he started writing tv critiques for the London Daily Telegraph in 2011 until last year. Despite his bout with leukemia, he still writes the occasional feature for the Telegraph: http://www.clivejames.com/essays/cjtv He is, of course, a renowned literary critic, a brilliant poet, a noted novelist and memoirist, former television presenter, and an Australian icon.
Clive James came to mind when I read about the kerfuffle over former Australian Financial Review (AFR) editor Colleen Ryan’s review of the ABC’s coverage of the Federal Budget last year. The ABC asked Ms Ryan, a highly respected journalist, to look at the coverage as part of their quarterly review of a small cross-selection of content and “give us a warts and all view of it,” according to Alan Sunderland, Acting Head of People at the ABC. Mr Sunderland said: “Colleen produced an excellent and comprehensive report. Her overall judgement was that our coverage complied with all of our policies and guidelines and the overall quality was ‘excellent.’ At significant length [45 pages], the report discusses all aspects of the coverage and provides a series of observations on ways it might have been improved, expanded or extended.” http://ab.co/1AmPLYl
Okay, so why all the fuss? Well, Ms Ryan made the egregious mistake of suggesting the tone of questioning in Sarah Ferguson’s 7.30 interview with Treasurer Joe Hockey “could have been interpreted by some viewers to be a potential breach of the ABC’s impartiality guidelines.” http://ab.co/1JsDmcJ Ms Ryan focused on the first question of the interview: “Now, you’ve just delivered that Budget. It’s a Budget with a new tax, with levies, with co-payments. Is it liberating for a politician to decide election promises don’t matter?” Here’s a link to the interview if you haven’t seen it: http://ab.co/1CQck6a The former AFR editor said “that first question set the tone for the entire interview. The Treasurer appeared surprised and in my view was from that point on quite ‘rattled’ during the interview … the language in Ferguson’s first question was emotive. I also believe that the average viewer would consider that the Treasurer was not treated with sufficient respect by the interviewer.”
Whew! Let’s go back to Clive James. He didn’t say you had to pretend you were an average viewer. He clearly wasn’t, and the wit and wisdom in his columns proved that. He watched television like the average viewer in his own home, without the glitz and glamour of publicity previews. But he took notes and knew his subject. As long-time ABC interviewer Kerry O’Brien put it: “Ryan tries to put herself in the mind of an average viewer. Who on earth is an average viewer when you’re talking about politics?” http://bit.ly/1zPwCL8
I agree with Kerry that the ABC gave Colleen Ryan an impossible task: a “warts and all” review of the coverage under the corporation’s editorial commitments to accuracy, impartiality and fairness. Colleen had to consider whether the language was “emotive, hyperbolic, inflammatory or derogatory. And was the interviewee treated with civility and respect.” Joe Hockey’s a big boy. He can handle it, and like many politicians, he said so at the end of the interview to Sarah: “Thank you very much. Great to be here.” Former Liberal Foreign Minister Andrew Downer used to say to many journalists who had just wiped him out in an interview — “Pleasure” — when you knew it was far from it for him. When I was producing the Channel Nine Sunday program, Laurie Oakes nearly made Labor MP Daryl Melham fall off his chair at the end of a particularly hard interview, watch then Opposition Leader John Howard fall silent during a 3-minute commercial break after a disastrous part one of the conversation, and have then Liberal Health Minister Michael Wooldridge “for breakfast” on Sunday – a political cartoonist portraying Oakes coming out of a CT scanner with Wooldridge inside of him, with the doctor saying: “You really did have him for breakfast, didn’t you Laurie?” Respect was shown to each of the interviewees, and the language was not emotive or inflammatory. Just tough interviews exhibiting good journalism.
Ryan said in her evaluation: “This interview provided gripping television. But was it fair and impartial? Did it grant due respect to the interviewee? Would the average viewer consider its tone (on the part of Ferguson) as so aggressive that it exhibited bias?” She then had to consider those questions within the context of the ABC’s Impartiality Guidance Notes (issued 22 July 2013, revised 21 May 2014). Sorry, Colleen, at this point, I would have discarded the notes and just watched the interview.
vcm_s_kf_repr_555x295
It was gripping television, fair and impartial, granted due respect to the interviewee and was not so aggressive that it exhibited bias. Sarah Ferguson had 11 minutes and 58 seconds to get the most out of the interview, and Joe Hockey had the same amount of time to avoid answering the questions. Colleen Ryan pointed out two other exchanges where Ferguson might have been a bit cheeky. In the first Sarah asked: “… are you saying that individual promises made by an Opposition Leader no longer matter?” Hockey replied: “Well, we can spend the whole conversation talking about the process of promises …” She quickly added: “That’s a yes or no question.”
In the second exchange, the Treasurer talked about tax adjustments and Ferguson asked: “Adjustments? Is that what we’re going to call them now?” Hockey replied: “Well, of any substance, so any tax changes if you like or whatever you’d like to call it. Ferguson: “New taxes?” Hockey: “But whatever you’d like to call it, there’s two. You know, there’s actually fewer than any of the previous Budgets from the previous government. So that’s a good sign.” Ferguson: “They’re still taxes. I don’t need to teach you, Treasurer, what a tax is. You know that a co-payment, a levy and a tax are all taxes by any other name. Am I correct?” Hockey: “Of course they are. Yes.”
There was mixed reaction to the review especially when The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) came up with this headline: “Sarah Ferguson interview with Joe Hockey ‘breached ABC bias guidelines’: review” http://bit.ly/1BWxu7t ABC’s Media Watch had a comprehensive wrap of the pros and cons of the coverage. I thought Kerry O’Brien (photo above) and Alan Sunderland’s articles were two of the best on the positive side, and one of the shortest and sweetest was Laurie Oakes’ tweet: “Bottom line in my view — criticism of Ferguson interview in review just silly.”
On the negative side, it was hard to go past Herald Sun columnist and Network Ten presenter Andrew Bolt’s criticism. In his Herald Sun column he cited four examples out of 76 from Ryan’s review: the opening question of the Hockey interview; Lateline host Emma Alberici, asking a Coalition MP: “Do you think voters are really stupid and can’t recognise a lie when they see one?”; Tasmania’s 7.30 edition for giving the microphone to “a parade of Leftist critics;” and ABC’s The Drum for “stacking its panel with two pro-Labor panellists against one lone conservative.” http://bit.ly/1vtXnJE And he continued the attack on The Bolt Report on Ten in which he described Ferguson’s interview as “contemptuous,” and said there were “only four examples of ABC bias in a week.” He then asked Sydney Daily Telegraph columnist Miranda Devine: “Ryan wasn’t really looking very hard, was she?” Devine replied: “No, and look, so what if she did because all these so-called inquiries and bias audits and so on are just laughable from the ABC. They are a fig leaf to appease conservatives or rural viewers who are incensed by the continual dripping Green Left, inner-city bias that comes out of every pore of the ABC, with a few honourable exceptions.” http://bit.ly/1A1MJoM
In my experience, getting an Australian politician to answer questions without resorting to cliches and “staying on message” and actually making news in a 12-minute interview is extremely difficult. It takes a lot of research and the ability to follow up answers. Sarah Ferguson did that in her interview, and all the good reporters and political editors I’ve worked with, like Laurie Oakes, Kerry O’Brien, Jana Wendt, Ellen Fanning, Paul Lyneham, Graham Davis, David Speers, Janine Perrett, Helen Dalley, Hugh Riminton and Paul Bongiorno, to name a few, have also done their homework.
Quentin Dempster, the former ABC presenter and interviewer, ended his column in the SMH: “While debate rages, please have some sympathy for the interviewer. How would you go if you had just eight to 10 minutes with a politician as slippery as we breed them in Australia? With very great respect.” http://bit.ly/1Eqijkr
But the last word should go to Clive James, who reviewed the resignation speech of Richard Nixon, in his Observer column on August 11, 1974: “Nixon has come a long way as a talking head, and never did a smoother gig than his last as President. ‘I have always preferred to carry through to the finish, whatever the personal agony involved.’ He meant that he had always preferred to cling on to power, whatever the agony involved for other people – but at least the lie was told in ringing tones . . . Semantically, the whole speech was rubbish. As a performance though, it merited what respect the viewer could summon.”

Raags to riches in India

“If I were to begin life again, I would devote it to music. It is the only cheap and unpunished rapture upon earth.”

That was Sydney Smith, English writer and clergyman (1771-1845), on music as an addiction. Manisha Jolie Amin also has a love affair with the raag, a type of musical form in India – the word raag meaning mood.

I don’t think I’ve ever appreciated what a raag is, but Manisha Amin certainly has, and her novel, Dancing to the Flute, is an ode to its beauty. The tale starts slowly as Kalu, a cheeky street orphan, plays a tune with a leaf rolled into a pipe as he’s perched in a banyan tree in the village of Hastinapore.

Along comes a healer, a Vaid (don’t worry, there’s a glossary in the back of the book), who hears the sound of music: “The sound, sweet and clear, rode the wind, snaking through the tree and down into the village.” When Vaid Dada offers to fix his injured foot, Kalu is reluctant because he can’t pay, but the healer gives him ten rupees and says his music will pay for his treatment.

Okay, you say, another one of those Indian novels, focussing on nature and art and folklore. Wrong.  Once you get through that lyrical first chapter, the story turns to Kalu’s entry into the real world of music, studying under a master musician, brother of the healer.

What sets this first novel apart from others are its well-drawn characters; the use of stories told to the author by her mother, and knowledge of the flute and songs supplied by her father, who played the instrument. It is also beautifully written, deceptively simple in its language, but layered with emotion and empathy.

Kalu loves the flute and wants to be a musician, but is torn between leaving his friends, Bal, a buffalo boy, and, Malti, a servant girl, in the house of Ganga Ba, his first benefactor, and going to the house of Guruji, a teacher, and world-class musician, to learn how to play properly.

After hearing Kalu play a plastic flute, the Vaid tells him: “Never be scared to play. This sound, this music is a part of you, just like the tears on your face. You cannot throw it away. It will not let you’.” He takes Kalu to his brother, who’s retired to the hills, tired of the travel and the cost of fame.

The relationship between Kalu and Guruji is one of the strengths of Dancing to the Flute. Ashwin, Guruji’s right-hand man, is another strong character. When the teacher agrees to accept the street urchin as his student, Ashwin says: “Listen Kalu, you have a gift. Vaid Dada wouldn’t have brought you here otherwise. You need to trust that. And Guruji will make a real musician out of you, Kalu, despite himself.”

Although Vaid Dada denies it to his brother, there is an element of Pygmalion to the story. Guruji teaches him to read and write and the value of books: “Books can teach you things, can take you to places you couldn’t possibly go otherwise. And they are the great equaliser.” And to prove it, when Kalu writes a letter to Ganga Ba, she brings in all the servants to
read it to them.

Amin as narrator tells the story of the wolf boy brought up by a pack of wolves in the jungle, and Malti back in the village remembers the tale, and thinks Kalu is just as interesting, “his foot, the miracle of its healing and his promotion to student from beggar boy made him newsworthy. She hoped he was finding the change easier than she imagined the wolf boy did, or than even she would have. Malti liked things to stay the same.”

RAVI SHANKAR A RAAG ROLE MODEL

Another interesting character is Martin, a Western musician, who has come to Guruji to learn classical Indian music after hearing Ravi Shankar play at the Cathedral of St John the Divine in New York City. Guruji takes Martin on so that he can teach Kalu as well: “I’d like him to be able to read, write and play music the Western way. Not so that he become a Western musician, but – and I mean this, Kalu – so he understands your world as you learn his.”

It was about this time in my reading of the novel that I realised it reminded me of that great Indian novelist, R.K. Narayan, who I first came across in the 1980s when The University of Chicago Press published a series of his books set in Malgudi, a city of his own creation. Graham Greene was a big fan of Narayan. In his praise, Greene talked about writers like Tolstoy, Henry James, Turgenev, Chekhov and Conrad “who hold us at a long arm’s length with their ‘courtly foreign grace’,” and then added: “Narayan (whom I don’t hesitate to name in such a context) more than any of them wakes in me a spring of gratitude, for he has offered me a second home. Without him I could never have known what it is like to be Indian.”

Here’s a little snippet from his first novel, Swami and Friends, published in 1935, about a protest against the British featuring the main character: “Somebody asked him: ‘Young man, do you want our country to remain in eternal slavery?’ ‘No, No.’ Swaminathan replied. ‘But you are wearing a foreign cap.’ Swaminathan quailed with shame. ‘Oh, I didn’t notice,’ he said, and removing his cap flung it into the fire with a feeling he was saving the country.”

I’m not saying Manisha Amin is at Narayan’s level, but this is only her first novel, and like the famous Indian writer concentrates on ordinary people like Malti and Bal and those who gather outside the gate of Guruji’s house to listen to Kalu play. And she takes on tough issues like arranged marriages – Malti’s unhappy union with a man who left her alone until dawn on her wedding night. Amin uses the character of Guruji to teach Kalu valuable lessons about life. After a tragic event, he tells his student: “You will never forget this pain. I know nothing I say will truly make a difference to you at this point. But you can take your experiences and choose how they change you.” That last line is reminiscent of what playwright Arthur Miller said to the writer Joe McGinniss in his book Heroes: “To exist constantly in a state of controlled hysteria. It’s agony. But everyone has agony. The difference is that I try to take my agony home and teach it to sing.” (Joe McGinniss will be speaking about his book on Sarah Palin at the Sydney Writers’ Festival next weekend: http://bit.ly/Hc1ni3 )

The scenes at the end of the book between Kalu and Malti and Bal and Guruji are so moving, I had to wipe away the tears. Unfortunately, that means I can’t give you any details, otherwise it will spoil the ending. All I can say is that there is a lot of dancing to the flute in the final chapter. And Kalu finds that “the real gift he’d been given wasn’t the flute itself, but the way it had helped him to find the people he needed most.”

My only complaint, and it’s a minor one, is that I had trouble understanding the explanations of the raag, with its aalaaps and jors and antaras and bol bandhs which introduce each section of the book – all written by Guruji. I don’t know much about music, except that it can make me happy and move me to tears, but these standfirsts slowed me down, particularly at the end – except the last line of the final introduction to the last part: “It’s the release of breath that the audience makes as the last note dies away.” That I can understand, but I’d suggest putting it all in an introduction so that readers can go back to it, if necessary, as they would with the glossary. And, to be fair, the author has provided a list of books and articles about the music in the novel after the acknowledgements, for those interested.

Speaking of acknowledgements, they are lovely. Born in Kenya and a frequent traveller to India, Manisha Jolie Amin thanks her family for help on the Indian background – the Gujarati language, the songs, the stories et al. She writes: “This book would never have been written had I not experienced the beauty of the raag. My sincere thanks to the musicians that dedicate their life to this form of music.”

I’d like to thank them, too, for making this book possible.

Dancing to the Flute, Manisha Jolie Amin, Allen & Unwin, 342 pages, $29.99

Sarah Ferguson at Press Freedom Dinner

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

Before I go, a brief wrap on the Media Alliance’s Press Freedom Dinner in Sydney last week. The highlights were the speeches by Laurie Oakes of Channel Nine and Sarah Ferguson of the ABC’s Four Corners – Gold Walkley winners and passionate journalists. Laurie spoke about how the Convergence Review Committee absorbed the work of the Finkelstein inquiry and was well received – “mainly because it recommends an industry-led body to oversee standards, rather than the dreaded statutory authority favoured by Finkelstein.” Laurie Oakes also made the important point that public trust in the media is declining and we need to rebuild that trust.

Sarah’s speech was the “best ever,” in my opinion, on how press freedom often depends on non-journalists like bloggers and citizen journalists and activists like Lyn White of Animals Australia, who shot the footage of cattle slaughter in Indonesia, before Four Corners took their own for their story A Bloody Business. She blasted newspapers and television stations for running stories alleging the ABC’s animal footage being fake, and ABC 24 for repeating the stories without calling her or the producer to check. And she told the lovely story about Hussain Nasir, an Iraqi refugee, who helped Four Corners with their 2010 report, Smugglers’ Paradise, wearing a hidden camera into some of the most dangerous places in Indonesia. A former operative with US Special Forces in Iraq, Hussain told Four Corners: “I must destroy these bad people and the people behind them.” During the course of the program, Hussain risks his life and helps expose six major people smugglers. The UNHCR approves the resettlement of him and his wife and four children, and his family eventually gets to Australia. At the last minute, his resettlement is cancelled. Four Corners and the ABC then worked hard to get him here … and there is a happy ending. During her speech, Sarah Ferguson introduced Hussain Nasir, who was sitting at the ABC table, to the Press Freedom Dinner audience, and he received a long and well-deserved ovation. Bravo Sarah Ferguson, Four Corners and Hussain Nasir.

Lest we forget: Chris Warren, the Federal Secretary of the Media Alliance, told the dinner that 106 journalists and media personnel were killed last year, according to the International Federation of Journalists. For many journalists, the freedom of the press is a cause to die for.

Update: Saturday 5.40pm AEST. And the Newseum in Washington DC will rededicate its Journalists Memorial on Monday, May 14 at 10am (midnight Tuesday Australian EST), honouring journalists and media personnel who died covering the news in 2011. Among those honoured will be reporter Paul Lockyer and cameraman John Bean of the ABC, who were killed in a helicopter crash, along with their pilot Gary Ticehurst, in South Australia last August. Paul Lockyer’s sons, Nicholas and Jamie, will be attending the ceremony on Monday. The memorial honours 2,156 reporters, photographers, broadcaster and news executives from around the world, dating back to 1837. The CEO of the Newseum, James C. Duff, said: “The Newseum is proud to honour these journalists who paid the ultimate sacrifice in pursuit of the truth.” Hear, hear!

Update: Friday, May 18, 2.49pm And here’s how the ABC AM program covered the moving ceremony on Tuesday morning (Australian time): http://bit.ly/L1WaeO