Backgrounder Summary ABC-TV NEWS AND THE 1998 WATERFRONT DISPUTE: REPORTING OR BARRACKING? BY MICHAEL WARBY AND KATE MORRISON In 1998, the ABC’s coverage of the MUA/Patrick waterfront dispute—the most contentious political issue of the year—led to allegations of bias, most notably by Senator Richard Alston, the Minister responsible for the ABC. In response, the ABC commissioned a report by Professor Philip Bell of the University of New South Wales. The Bell Report, released on 27 May 1998, supposedly 'proved' that the ABC's coverage had not been biased. The IPA Media Monitoring Unit has reassessed the ABC-TV 7.00pm Sydney News coverage (the same material as examined by Professor Bell) from 8 April to 6 May 1998. The IPA’s findings cast doubt on Bell’s conclusions and also on the rigour of his report. In contrast to the Bell Report, the IPA study of ABC News found: • Members of the Maritime Union and its supporters received 36 per cent more air time than did Patrick, its supporters and the Federal Government. • ABC News’ journalists’ commentary favoured the MUA and its supporters by 33 per cent. • The MUA was favoured by more than two-to-one in journalists’ commentary on the courtroom battle and on the public relations campaign. • The MUA’s legal arguments were presented by journalists more than twice as often as Patrick’s. • Journalists’ commentary on the major players was more sympathetic in tone towards the MUA than Patrick or the Federal Government and often implied that the actions of Patrick and the Federal Government were unethical. • ABC News largely ignored the historical context of the dispute and gave the misleading impression that the lock-out had been unprovoked. In summary, ABC News provided distinctly more favourable coverage to the Maritime Union and its supporters than Patrick or the Coalition Government, contravening both its Code of Practice and its Editorial Policies, and raising serious concerns about the ABC’s ability to hold itself accountable. April 1999, Vol. 11/1, rrp $12.00 plus p&p ABC NEWS AND THE 1998 WATERFRONT DISPUTE: REPORTING OR BARRACKING? ‘Tonight, the waterfront war continues, with an Aus- INTRODUCTION tralian family caught in the crossfire.’ Or, on 20 April, reporter Jim Middleton said, ‘Simon Crean mounted the barricades in Sydney to rally the waterfront troops.’ The waterfront dispute was the biggest political It was a natural metaphor to adopt—other media news story of 1998. When Patrick locked out its used it, as did participants (e.g. MUA official Rod 1400 MUA waterfront workers on the night of 7 Orreal on 21 April saying ‘the battle, I don’t think April, the stage was set for a story which would has started yet …’). But was the waterfront dispute a dominate newspaper headlines and TV news bulle- war in itself, or simply a crucial battle in an ongoing tins for more than a month. From 8 April to 6 May campaign? If it was a just a battle, then what were 1998, ABC-TV’s 7.00pm News (Sydney) reported the causes of the war, who started it, and why? ABC on the waterfront dispute 27 out of 29 days, with News’ coverage failed to explore the implications of the story leading the news bulletin 17 times; a total its own preferred metaphor. of 69 news stories. ABC News began using the war metaphor from The story was ideal for television—a cast of col- the first day after Patrick’s lock-out of the union late ourful characters, a developing plot with hints of in the evening of 7 April. On 8 April, Middleton re- sinister activities behind the scenes and, most im- ferred to ‘the war on the wharfies’ while ABC’s Giulia portantly, conflict. TV news, more than any other Baggio reported that the MUA’s John Coombs was news medium, craves visible confrontation and the going to call on ‘powerful international union friends waterfront dispute provided plenty: security guards, to help fight his war’. The next day, newsreader Ri- dogs, angry wharfies, clashes between union pick- chard Morecroft introduced the news with, ‘Day Two ets, the police and truck drivers, farmers’ protests. of the Great Waterfront Battle, and Patrick has landed In the minds of the media, the ‘war on the wharves’ its non-union workforce on the nation’s docks.’ was a physical battle first and foremost; the courts, The war metaphor and the characterization of 8 the political fall-out and the commercial impact an April as ‘Day One’ of the ‘war’ were ideas adopted interesting adjunct. It was the ‘battle on the docks’ almost immediately by ABC News’ journalists and that made great television. others in the media. The trouble with metaphors is they can have their own dynamics: in a ‘war’, the natu- ral inclination is to work out which side you should THE WATERFRONT ‘WAR’: be barracking for. In most wars, the ‘bad guy’ is usu- ally characterized as the aggressor, the side whose ac- A METAPHOR TOO FAR tions made the need for retaliatory action unavoid- able. By framing 8 April, after the lock-out of the The ‘battle on the docks’, comprised over one-third evening of 7 April, as ‘Day One’, Patrick was clearly of reporters’ commentary on the dispute between 8 cast as the aggressor, with the most obvious case be- April and 6 May 1998 (see Chart 1), and repeatedly ing Middleton’s reference to the ‘war on the wharfies’. referred to the dispute as a ‘war’ or ‘battle’. For exam- Furthermore, ABC News’ reports provided no con- ple, newsreader Michael Troy reported on 13 April: text to Patrick’s action, even though both sides were Chart 1: ABC News (Sydney) Coverage of the Waterfront Dispute: 8 April–6 May 1998 37.1% n = 1314 statements 17.8% 13.3% 7.5% 7.5% 5.8% 4.6% 2.8% 1.9% 1.8% Battle on The court- PR Commercial Federal and Legal Economic Negotiations Historical Other the docks room battle campaigns impact State Politics arguments arguments context 2 IPA Backgrounder, Vol. 11/1, 1999 ABC NEWS AND THE 1998 WATERFRONT DISPUTE: REPORTING OR BARRACKING? cisions, with each side gaining benefits Chart 2: Battle on the Docks: ABC News (Sydney), and sustaining losses. Battles, on the 8 April–6 May 1998 other hand, usually have victors, and 75 n = 230 statements ABC News’ use of the war metaphor de- 70 65 manded its ‘victories’. This was most ob- 60 1234 vious in the reporting of the 4 May High 1234 55 1234MUA ‘win’ Court decision, where the initial fram- 12345 50 12345 12345 ing of the ABC News’ report was very 45 12345 Patrick/Govt ‘win’ 12345 much in terms of a win for the MUA— 40 12345 12345 12345 despite the High Court’s own presenta- 35 1234 12345 1234 12345 tion of the decision being titled 30 1234 12345 1234 12345 25 1234 12345 ‘Patrick’s appeal upheld in part’. Later Number of Statements 1234 12345 20 1234 12345 in the report, some of the complexity 1234 12345 1234 15 1234 12345 1234 1234 1234 12345 1234 1234 was alluded to, but only after the ABC 10 1234 12345 1234 1234 1234 12345 1234 1234 had proclaimed the ‘winner’. 5 1234 12345 1234 1234 1234 12345 1234 1234 ABC News’ (Melbourne) newsreader Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Ian Henderson’s nationally-broadcast in- terview (23 April) with Victorian Trades well aware that there were many events leading up to the 7 April lock-out. For Chart 3: The Courtroom Battle: ABC News (Sydney), instance, MUA organizer Mick O’Leary 8 April–6 May 1998 was shown on ABC News saying, ‘when 30 123 n = 112 statements 123 we started this, over ten weeks ago’, re- 123 MUA ‘win’ 12345 ferring to the MUA’s campaign against 12345 1234 25 12345 1234 Patrick/Govt ‘win’ 12345 1234 the leasing of Webb Dock to P&C Ste- 12345 1234 12345 1234 vedores. 12345 1234 20 12345 1234 12345 1234 The coverage of the ‘battle on the 12345 1234 12345 1234 docks’ followed a conventional pattern. 12345 1234 15 12345 1234 In week one, with the lock-out and suc- 1234 12345 1234 1234 12345 1234 1234 12345 1234 cessful replacement of the MUA mem- 1234 12345 1234 1234 10 1234 12345 1234 1234 bers with non-union wharfies, Patrick 1234 12345 1234 1234 1234 12345 1234 1234 Number of Statements 1234 12345 1234 1234 was presented as winning (see Chart 2). 1234 12345 1234 1234 5 1234 12345 1234 1234 But, then again, ‘aggressors’ tend to win 1234 12345 1234 1234 1234 12345 1234 1234 1234 12345 1234 1234 the first round. 1234 12345 1234 1234 As the pickets became increasingly 1234 12345 1234 1234 organized and attempts to break them Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 in Sydney and Melbourne failed in week two, the MUA was reported as winning. As atten- Hall spokesperson Leigh Hubbard after the decision tion shifted to the courtroom battle in weeks three of the Full Bench of the Federal Court best exempli- and four, far less attention was paid to the battle on fied this tendency, with three out of four questions the docks, and it was presented as a much more even inviting Mr Hubbard to declare victory. Even more struggle. stunningly, when Mr Hubbard, a union leader, wanted to talk about admitting the need for waterfront re- form and its past history in answer to his second ques- THE COURTROOM BATTLE tion, Henderson’s follow-up question pushed the in- terview back toward the apparently much more im- portant matter of declaring a union victory: As the majority of legal decisions favoured the MUA, Q1: Do the cheers say it all? it was not surprising that the MUA appeared victo- Q2: From the union’s point of view—what is the rious in ABC News’ coverage of the courtroom bat- appropriate next step for Patrick? tle (see Chart 3).