With the broadcaster in chaos and needing stability, the priority should be to settle things down
There is a tendency in news reporting to depict crises as battles between good and evil. It’s rarely that simple. The current shemozzle engulfing the ABC is an example.
We need some correctives if there is to be a good way forward.
This account of recent events is drawn from numerous conversations with ABC insiders, not one of whom is a spin doctor serving former managing director Michelle Guthrie or former chairman Justin Milne, both of whom are guilty of strategic leaks designed to serve their interests.
It leads me to the view that while the current ABC board is weak and lacks legitimacy, calls for it to be sacked are overcooked and not in the best interests of the corporation.
As well, while Milne has amply demonstrated that he was unfit for his position, there was also a context for his actions that has not been fully understood
For example, his now notorious email in which he called for senior reporter Emma Alberici to be sacked was written in a climate where it was common for members of the leadership team to criticise reporters.
Guthrie was one of those regularly expressing frustration with Alberici.
Long-term ABC watchers may remember that early in Guthrie’s term, she told an ABC staff meeting that in any other organisation, the presenter of the Radio National Science Show, Robyn Williams, would be sacked. This was because he had criticised the axing of the Catalyst science show.
She was not foolish enough to express such views to a broad audience again, but within her close management team and to the board, she did express similar thoughts about other members of the editorial staff, including and especially Alberici.
While this does not excuse Milne’s idiocy, and particularly his linking of the controversy to a perceived need to appease government, it does contextualise it.
Some, cutting him too much slack perhaps, use this context to describe his email as foolish rather than malicious.
Some of those around Guthrie say she defended her staff and they never understood her to be seriously suggesting Alberici should be sacked. Others gained the impression that it was both Milne and Guthrie who wanted Alberici gone.
Guthrie had suffered a disastrous grilling before Senate estimates in February, when Senator Kristina Keneally had clearly been briefed by people close to the process of editing Alberici’s copy.
Guthrie was also frustrated by Alberici’s use of Twitter to continue to speak in her own defence and against the management.
In this context, it is notable that nobody – including the board – has seen the whole of the email exchange between Guthrie and Milne. Journalists have been asking her spin doctors to release it, and they haven’t. We are entitled to conclude there is something in the whole exchange she does not wish to be made public. Perhaps it is trivial and personal. Perhaps it would alter the picture.
So, what about the board?
The paragraphs that have been leaked from Milne’s email were contained in a 12-page document circulated to the board by Guthrie in the final stages of a drawn out crisis that ended in her sacking.
Weeks before, the board had given her a detailed letter laying out their concerns with her performance under eight headings.
The concerns included diligence, people management, general issues of judgment – for example her being absent at key moments – poor relationships with her leadership team, problems with the budget and financial management, and poor communications with Canberra, particularly over funding.
Different members of the board placed different weightage on these issues. All were dissatisfied with her responses.
A fractured relationship entered the endgame, which was made urgent by the fact that a valued member of the executive team was threatening to resign if matters were not resolved. Lawyers were already involved when the Guthrie document was circulated. The board understood it to be confidential and legally privileged.
Board members are now claiming that it is possible – even likely – that they would have investigated the allegations against Milne if they had time, but they were already in the middle of an awful crisis. The perceived priority was to get rid of Guthrie.
There was no explicit discussion in board meetings of the allegations against Milne. But it was “too soon in the process” according to one. They were already in a terrible crisis, and given the climate and Guthrie’s behaviour, they were not sure all the allegations she was making were true.
Events overtook them. Within 24 hours of sacking Guthrie, her account of her interactions with Milne was leaked to Fairfax Media, and the rest is history.
We will never know what, if anything, the board would have done about Milne had it had the time. Some years ago, the board included figures such as investment banker Stephen Skala , financier Simon Mordant and public figures such as Fiona Stanley – all used to operating in rugged political environments.
There is nobody on the board at present of the same calibre and fibre, with the possible exception of Peter Lewis, the longest serving member and the only one apart from staff elected director Jane Connors with media experience.
The government wears the blame for the weakness of the board. The former Labor minister for communications Stephen Conroy set up an arm’s length process for board appointments designed to stop political stacking. A nomination panel made recommendations to the minister.
The current communications minister, Senator Mitch Fifield, trashed that process.
In three cases in recent years – board director Donny Walford in 2015, mining executive Vanessa Guthrie in 2017 and lawyer Joseph Gersh in May this year – he has appointed people without obviously relevant qualifications who were not recommended by the panel. That’s three directors of a total of seven.
At least the woman just appointed acting chair, Kirstin Ferguson, has the merit of having been recommended by the independent panel.
Why not sack the lot of them?
The reasons are both principled and pragmatic.
First, we will never know whether they would have acted against Milne if given time
Second, their reasons for moving against Guthrie had nothing to do with her defence of editorial independence.
Third, there is pragmatism. The ABC is in chaos and needs stability.
Leaving aside the mess of the last few days, the organisation is still suffering from the restructure introduced by Guthrie, which has only been partly executed.
Team managers in the newly formed entertainment and specialist division cannot see their own staff in the approvals system because some are still in radio and some still in television.
The budget overruns – which formed part of the context for Guthrie’s dismissal – have meant that all unspent funds in the sections were compulsorily acquired by central administration a few weeks ago, without consultation or communication.
The fact that ABC content is still being commissioned, produced and broadcast is a tribute to the staff.
If there are heroes in this story, it is the staff and the content directors – Gaven Morris, David Anderson (now acting managing director) and Michael Mason, together with chief finance officer Louise Higgins, who were meat in the sandwich, caught between Guthrie, the board and the staff.
They were engaged in numerous very difficult conversations, and they held the line while dealing with a managing director and a chairman, neither of whom had a firm grasp on what itmeant to lead an organisation such as the ABC.
The ways forward?
The priority should be to settle the place down. That means first settling things with Guthrie, which could be expensive but should include a confidentiality clause to end her strategic leaks.
Second, the appointment process for ABC board members must be cleaned up and due process respected by governments of all colours. No more jobs for the boys and girls.
This process should start with the arm’s length and transparent appointment of an excellent chair.
Finally, a new managing director should be confirmed in the job as soon as possible. Anderson would seem to be the most immediately available pair of hands.
If the legacy of this sordid affair is that governments and their acolytes think very carefully before attacking the editorial independence of the ABC, then we should all celebrate.
We need some correctives if there is to be a good way forward.
This account of recent events is drawn from numerous conversations with ABC insiders, not one of whom is a spin doctor serving former managing director Michelle Guthrie or former chairman Justin Milne, both of whom are guilty of strategic leaks designed to serve their interests.
It leads me to the view that while the current ABC board is weak and lacks legitimacy, calls for it to be sacked are overcooked and not in the best interests of the corporation.
As well, while Milne has amply demonstrated that he was unfit for his position, there was also a context for his actions that has not been fully understood
For example, his now notorious email in which he called for senior reporter Emma Alberici to be sacked was written in a climate where it was common for members of the leadership team to criticise reporters.
Guthrie was one of those regularly expressing frustration with Alberici.
Long-term ABC watchers may remember that early in Guthrie’s term, she told an ABC staff meeting that in any other organisation, the presenter of the Radio National Science Show, Robyn Williams, would be sacked. This was because he had criticised the axing of the Catalyst science show.
She was not foolish enough to express such views to a broad audience again, but within her close management team and to the board, she did express similar thoughts about other members of the editorial staff, including and especially Alberici.
While this does not excuse Milne’s idiocy, and particularly his linking of the controversy to a perceived need to appease government, it does contextualise it.
Some, cutting him too much slack perhaps, use this context to describe his email as foolish rather than malicious.
Some of those around Guthrie say she defended her staff and they never understood her to be seriously suggesting Alberici should be sacked. Others gained the impression that it was both Milne and Guthrie who wanted Alberici gone.
Guthrie had suffered a disastrous grilling before Senate estimates in February, when Senator Kristina Keneally had clearly been briefed by people close to the process of editing Alberici’s copy.
Guthrie was also frustrated by Alberici’s use of Twitter to continue to speak in her own defence and against the management.
In this context, it is notable that nobody – including the board – has seen the whole of the email exchange between Guthrie and Milne. Journalists have been asking her spin doctors to release it, and they haven’t. We are entitled to conclude there is something in the whole exchange she does not wish to be made public. Perhaps it is trivial and personal. Perhaps it would alter the picture.
So, what about the board?
The paragraphs that have been leaked from Milne’s email were contained in a 12-page document circulated to the board by Guthrie in the final stages of a drawn out crisis that ended in her sacking.
Weeks before, the board had given her a detailed letter laying out their concerns with her performance under eight headings.
The concerns included diligence, people management, general issues of judgment – for example her being absent at key moments – poor relationships with her leadership team, problems with the budget and financial management, and poor communications with Canberra, particularly over funding.
Different members of the board placed different weightage on these issues. All were dissatisfied with her responses.
A fractured relationship entered the endgame, which was made urgent by the fact that a valued member of the executive team was threatening to resign if matters were not resolved. Lawyers were already involved when the Guthrie document was circulated. The board understood it to be confidential and legally privileged.
Board members are now claiming that it is possible – even likely – that they would have investigated the allegations against Milne if they had time, but they were already in the middle of an awful crisis. The perceived priority was to get rid of Guthrie.
There was no explicit discussion in board meetings of the allegations against Milne. But it was “too soon in the process” according to one. They were already in a terrible crisis, and given the climate and Guthrie’s behaviour, they were not sure all the allegations she was making were true.
Events overtook them. Within 24 hours of sacking Guthrie, her account of her interactions with Milne was leaked to Fairfax Media, and the rest is history.
We will never know what, if anything, the board would have done about Milne had it had the time. Some years ago, the board included figures such as investment banker Stephen Skala , financier Simon Mordant and public figures such as Fiona Stanley – all used to operating in rugged political environments.
There is nobody on the board at present of the same calibre and fibre, with the possible exception of Peter Lewis, the longest serving member and the only one apart from staff elected director Jane Connors with media experience.
The government wears the blame for the weakness of the board. The former Labor minister for communications Stephen Conroy set up an arm’s length process for board appointments designed to stop political stacking. A nomination panel made recommendations to the minister.
The current communications minister, Senator Mitch Fifield, trashed that process.
In three cases in recent years – board director Donny Walford in 2015, mining executive Vanessa Guthrie in 2017 and lawyer Joseph Gersh in May this year – he has appointed people without obviously relevant qualifications who were not recommended by the panel. That’s three directors of a total of seven.
At least the woman just appointed acting chair, Kirstin Ferguson, has the merit of having been recommended by the independent panel.
Why not sack the lot of them?
The reasons are both principled and pragmatic.
First, we will never know whether they would have acted against Milne if given time
Second, their reasons for moving against Guthrie had nothing to do with her defence of editorial independence.
Third, there is pragmatism. The ABC is in chaos and needs stability.
Leaving aside the mess of the last few days, the organisation is still suffering from the restructure introduced by Guthrie, which has only been partly executed.
Team managers in the newly formed entertainment and specialist division cannot see their own staff in the approvals system because some are still in radio and some still in television.
The budget overruns – which formed part of the context for Guthrie’s dismissal – have meant that all unspent funds in the sections were compulsorily acquired by central administration a few weeks ago, without consultation or communication.
The fact that ABC content is still being commissioned, produced and broadcast is a tribute to the staff.
If there are heroes in this story, it is the staff and the content directors – Gaven Morris, David Anderson (now acting managing director) and Michael Mason, together with chief finance officer Louise Higgins, who were meat in the sandwich, caught between Guthrie, the board and the staff.
They were engaged in numerous very difficult conversations, and they held the line while dealing with a managing director and a chairman, neither of whom had a firm grasp on what itmeant to lead an organisation such as the ABC.
The ways forward?
The priority should be to settle the place down. That means first settling things with Guthrie, which could be expensive but should include a confidentiality clause to end her strategic leaks.
Second, the appointment process for ABC board members must be cleaned up and due process respected by governments of all colours. No more jobs for the boys and girls.
This process should start with the arm’s length and transparent appointment of an excellent chair.
Finally, a new managing director should be confirmed in the job as soon as possible. Anderson would seem to be the most immediately available pair of hands.
If the legacy of this sordid affair is that governments and their acolytes think very carefully before attacking the editorial independence of the ABC, then we should all celebrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment