From: Gerard Henderson Sent: Tuesday, 14 May 2013 4:33 PM To: Xanthe Kleinig Cc: Mark Scott; Richard Finlayson; Michael Millett Subject: RE: query from Media Watch
Dear Ms Kleinig
I refer to your recent phone call to my office and subsequent email to me (dated 9 May 2013) advising that the ABC 1 Media Watch program “is interested in the declarations or otherwise of expert commentators from institutes and think tanks who contribute frequently to the public conversation, especially in the media”.
I watched the Media Watch credits last night. I noted that Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes has three journalists/researchers and four librarians in addition to a production team of around ten (not including studio/camera/editing crew).
In view of Media Watch’s substantial research staff, I am surprised that you do not seem to be aware of the aims and practices of The Sydney Institute. The Sydney Institute is not a think tank. Rather, it is a policy forum for debate and discussion. The Sydney Institute has no policies, does no lobbying and does not advocate causes. Speakers at the Institute, over the past six months, include Senator Christine Milne, Anthony Albanese, Tony Abbott, Senator Bob Carr and Senator George Brandis.
As you should be aware, speakers address the Institute for about 30 minutes and engage in questions/discussion for a further 30 minutes. All talks delivered are published in full (subject to only stylistic editing and/or the rare elimination of defamatory material) in The Sydney Papers Online and downloaded on the Institute’s podcast. Most speeches are filmed by Sky News and shown on the Foxtel APAC Channel 648. Every now and then, the ABC turns up to film and/or record our functions.
In view of the fact that The Sydney Institute is a forum for debate and discussion only – and not a think tank with a policy agenda – your questions, which imply a possible conflict of interest, are not applicable to the Institute’s work.
As previously mentioned, the Institute is a genuinely pluralistic organisation which fulfils an educational role. I note such ABC1 Media Watch alumni as Richard Ackland, Monica Attard, Liz Jackson, David Marr and David Salter have addressed The Sydney Institute over the years. It is a matter of record that all Media Watch presenters have been left-of-centre types or leftists. Unlike Media Watch, The Sydney Institute is a genuinely pluralistic organisation. I also note that Donald McDonald (when ABC chairman) and Mark Scott (as ABC managing director) sought and obtained speaking opportunities at the Institute.
As you may or may not know, I put out my Media Watch Dog blog each Friday, ten months a year. This runs for around 8000 words each week. MWD does not employ researchers, journalists or librarians. ABC1’s Media Watch program, on the other hand, appears less frequently than MWD, runs for around 1200 words each episode and has a large staff.
In view of this, I am sure you will understand that I do not have any additional time to respond to further letters-of-demand from the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s Media Watch program on this matter.
One final point. Unlike ABC Media Watch, I am not in the habit of sending out letters-of-demand with reference to my Media Watch Dog blog. However, in view of the fact that Media Watch wants me to answer its questions, I ask the following questions of Mr Holmes and the Media Watch team – sure in the knowledge that Mr Holmes has a large enough staff to respond by the suggested time.
▪ Does Media Watch believe it is proper that Australians are entitled to know the taxpayer funded salaries of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott but not the taxpayer funded salaries of Jonathan Holmes, Leigh Sales, Tony Jones, Fran Kelly and Julian Morrow? If so, what is the rationale for this view?
▪ Does Media Watch believe that the salaries paid to key ABC presenters should be subjected to full disclosure? Especially in Julian Morrow’s case – since last year he used a public forum to remark on Mr Scott’s salary while subsequently claiming that his own entitlements from the ABC are “commercial-in-confidence”. If not, why not?
▪ Does Media Watch believe that ABC presenters should declare on-air and online all payments they receive, or have previously received, from corporations and other organisations for hosting, and/or speaking at, non-ABC events – along with the quantum involved in each case? If not, why not?
▪ If asked by a panellist on, say, the Q&A program to disclose what non-ABC payments Tony Jones has received – what should the presenter do?
▪ On Media Watch last night, Jonathan Holmes expressed the view that commentators on ABC 1 News Breakfast should declare if they are a member of a political party on each occasion they appear on the program. In view of this, should all ABC presenters and reporters declare if they are members of a trade union or an environment group on each occasion when they comment or report on a matter concerning industrial relations or the environment? If not, why not?
A response by 5 pm, Thursday 16 May 2013 would be most helpful.
* * * * * Best wishes
Gerard Henderson cc: Mark Scott, Managing Director & Editor-in-Chief, ABC Richard Finlayson, Head of Television, ABC Michael Millett, Director of Corporate Affairs, ABC
From: Xanthe Kleinig Sent: Thursday, 9 May 2013 5:08 PM To: Gerard Henderson Subject: query from Media Watch
Dear Gerard,
Media Watch is interested in the declarations or otherwise of expert commentators from institutes and think tanks who contribute frequently to the public conversation, especially in the media. We would appreciate your assistance with the following questions:
1. Do you disclose your funders, on your website or elsewhere? If elsewhere, could you please tell us where? 2. Do you have a policy of not disclosing your funders? If so, would you please explain why? 3. If a topic arises during a media appearance in which one of your major funders has a vested interest, would your staff feel it proper to disclose that fact? If not, why not? 4. If asked by the moderator or interviewer to disclose whether any of your funders have an interest in the matter, would your staff do so, without necessarily disclosing the name(s) of the funder(s) concerned?
We are sending similar questions to a number of other organisations.
A response by 5pm, Tuesday May 14 would be most helpful.
Regards, Xanthe Kleinig Journalist (Research), Media Watch
-