Linton Besser is one of the ABC’s strongest assets. As host of Media Watch he generally offers sharp analysis of the state of Australian media. In a recent episode, he covered the embarrassing revelation that the BBC had doctored a story about Trump, as well as the hysterical attempts by Australia’s right-wing, nut-job press to accuse the ABC of similar doctoring. Those accusations were easily refuted and the ABC’s position defended. However, Besser missed an opportunity to explain the conceptual foundations behind the supposed breaches—foundations that would have helped clarify the profound differences between the issues he raised.
First, doctoring footage is as old as journalism itself. Consider how the “tank man” image from Tiananmen Square has persisted in Western consciousness because only one portion of the footage is commonly shown - the moment a man stands in front of a tank - while other footage showing how the tank crew avoided harming him is rarely acknowledged. What makes doctoring foolish is that the full footage eventually emerges and exposes you as a charlatan. What makes it dangerous is the persistence of the doctored version in public memory. The ABC must avoid doctoring at all costs.
Doctoring is one issue; bias is another. No one can report without bias unless they have their brain removed so that none of their history, experience, or values bear upon a story. Bias is inevitable; that is why courts rely on cross-examination to test the perspectives presented. To say a reporter is biased is as meaningful as saying they are breathing. What matters is that reputable news organisations allow that bias to be interrogated, and when it is found, they should acknowledge it—or defend it.
The ABC, for example, should defend its position on gender-affirming care. Journalism carries no requirement to play devil’s advocate against its own well-supported positions. Audience feedback and expert testimony can supply critique. Experts on gender-affirming care should indeed be questioned, and legitimate concerns should be put to them. But interviewing hysterical TERF activists does not constitute analysis; it simply hands a platform to figures like J.K. Rowling, who mistakenly believes her fame grants her authority in adolescent psychology and healthcare.
A third issue is balance; something the ABC has long struggled to master. Balance is not interviewing an expert and then pairing them with an activist whose contrary view rests on rhetoric and speculation. Balance means that, if you report on a crime, you speak to both the victim and the accused (people present at the event), each with their own narrative shaped by their experience. The random opinions of someone making unsubstantiated claims about “crime in the neighbourhood” do not create balance; they simply signal a reporter desperate for material.
There is one more issue Besser did not address, but which plagues the ABC and is a legitimate concern. A journalist can report by studying a subject deeply and developing expertise, or they can resort to stenography. One of Mehdi Hasan’s strengths as an interviewer is the depth of his preparation; he knows the material well enough to probe the heart of an issue. Preparation is everything. Know your subject.
In contrast, as I wrote recently, I was thoroughly disappointed with Laura Tingle’s stenographic reporting of politicians’ mindless babble. Taking a politician’s opinion on anything is fraught; they are bound to stick to the party line, not the truth.
Besser would have done well to articulate these distinct elements of reporting and separate them conceptually. Without this clarity, his audience may incorrectly lump them together as if they carry equal weight or moral consequence or simply conflate them.