Performative policy and the ABC's failure to analyse it

I may forever be condemned to writing pieces that point out how the ABC has become a stenography service, faithfully reproducing the government’s preferred narrative across a wide range of policy areas. But here we go again.

The target this time is the ABC online article:
“How a grieving mother's letter helped Australia's world-first social media ban come into being.”

In essence, the article advances a familiar and comforting story. The ban, we are told, was morally necessary; it was carefully designed; it enjoyed broad community, expert and bipartisan support; technology companies failed to self-regulate; and government intervention was therefore justified and overdue.

Whenever the overwhelming majority of sources in a piece are politicians, scepticism is warranted. Yet this is precisely where the ABC appears to believe insight is best obtained.

Here is the list of people referenced.

Political figures

Anthony Albanese, Peter Malinauskas, Chris Minns, Michelle Rowland, Anika Wells, Peter Dutton, David Coleman, Dominic Perrottet

Legal / regulatory figures

Robert French (former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and author of the legal framework for the ban), Julie Inman Grant (eSafety Commissioner)

Mental health / academic experts

Simon Wilksch (Flinders University researcher and clinician specialising in eating disorders), Jonathan Haidt (US social psychologist and author of The Anxious Generation)

Parents / grieving family members (anecdotal evidence)

Kelly O’Brien (mother of Charlotte O’Brien), Charlotte O’Brien (deceased child), Emma Mason (mother of Matilda Rosewarne and public speaker on online harm), Matilda Rosewarne (deceased teenager)

Media / advocacy campaigners

Michael “Wippa” Wipfli (radio announcer and co-founder of advocacy group 36 Months), Rob Galluzzo (advertising executive and co-founder of 36 Months), Robb Evans (parent advocate, appears in delegation photograph)

Technology / industry figures

Daniel Petre (venture capitalist and former Microsoft vice-president), Antigone Davis (Meta vice-president and head of global safety), Mia Garlick (Meta regional director, Australia)

International figures

Ursula von der Leyen (President of the European Commission)

Referenced organisations

Meta, Google/YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, Digital Freedom Project

What becomes immediately apparent is that the article is overwhelmingly weighted towards the statements and opinions of politicians, campaigners, and grieving parents. Only one practising clinician is named. No epidemiologists, statisticians, or youth development researchers are quoted. No dissenting mental health experts are identified. Children and adolescents — those most affected by the policy — are spoken about, never heard from.

Taken as a whole, this is a deeply inadequate attempt to grapple with an issue that deserves far more serious treatment than providing politicians with a moral megaphone for virtue signalling.

Then there is the claim that should have raised immediate journalistic red flags: “120 mental health practitioners” supported the ban. Who are they? Where is the letter? Where are the quotes, the qualifications, the disagreements?

By contrast, dissenting expert voices are easy to find. For example, Leading mental health organisations say proposed ban won’t make social media safe explicitly warns against simplistic solutions. Another open letter, published by Reset.Tech and the Australian Child Rights Taskforce, argues instead for systemic regulation:

“As an alternative, systemic regulation has the capacity to drive up safety and privacy standards on platforms for all children… Digital platforms are just like other products, and can have safety standards imposed.”

That letter is co-signed by an extensive and credible list of experts — a list the ABC did not appear interested in interrogating.

And finally, where is the empirical evidence? A policy of this scale should be accompanied by a substantial body of research demonstrating efficacy. Yet the article provides none. The closest it comes is acknowledging critics who argue the reform is a populist knee-jerk response to a complex problem.

On that point, the critics are correct. This is a populist response, grounded more in emotion than evidence, and justified through selective authority rather than rigorous analysis. The ban may be politically convenient, but it is not intellectually serious.

The ABC’s role should have been to interrogate this policy, not to narrate its emotional origin story. Instead, it offers an account of performative policymaking, exemplified by ministerial international visits and salesmanship (Anika Wells in the US), while failing to properly examine whether the ban will work at all or if it is fair.

That is not public-interest journalism. It is narrative amplification. The ABC should have interrogated this policy process and found it severely wanting.

Postscript:

I have worked with students for 40 years. In my recent conversations with many people younger than 16, I have yet to find a single student who supports it. My experience, which seems to count for nothing, is that under-16s are a responsible group of people and their parents monitor their social media. This policy is a gross insult to them (in whom their parents have cultivated responsible attitudes) and their parents.

And most of them have said that it will be easy to subvert.