The Great Media Wall of Australia — by David Leyonhjelm
The ‘Great Firewall of China’ prevents Chinese internet users from viewing material which their government regards as harmful. Foreign sources of news that contradict the Chinese government’s official line do not appear. The goal is to influence the population’s way of thinking by promoting “right thinking” and censoring dissident ideas to create an environment in which people have the same values and share the same opinion.
As a consequence, people in China know very little about the protests in Hong Kong and their demands for freedom and democracy. As far as they know, they are the work of “violent criminals” and “external forces”.
Australia’s ABC uses censorship in a more subtle variety, but it also aims to create an environment in which people have the same values and share the same opinion. Like China, it does this by limiting access to views with which it disagrees.
This is particularly true of ABC news and current affairs, where there is a very clear agenda. But it extends more generally; it would be very rare to see someone smoking a cigarette or advocating privatisation of health services on any ABC program, for example.
On the other hand, you are likely to hear a range of views on issues such as how to redistribute wealth, whether Trump is worse than Hitler, or how many years we have until climate change destroys our future. You will also hear plenty about disadvantage — female, Aboriginal, LGBTI, disabled, transsexual. The ABC loves victims.
What you won’t hear is the case against wealth redistribution, praise for Trump, or claims that climate change is not caused by human activities. And notwithstanding more and more brown and black faces, you also won’t hear Indian immigrants discussing the merits of Australian coal exports to their former country, Aborigines debating how private enterprise can close the gap, or why so many Muslim immigrants voted against same sex marriage.
As for a debate about privatised health services, whether females initiate domestic violence, or how high taxes and plain packaging are not affecting smoking rates, forget it.
Diversity of opinion at the ABC only occurs within narrow boundaries. That is not likely to change either, with no conservative hosts on news or current affairs and their producers only inviting guests whose views conform to their own. They’d rather have a brown face than a contrary viewpoint.
If you relied on the ABC for information you would end up like the Chinese, having no option but to accept the values and opinions it promotes.
Like China, this has sinister implications. Those at the ABC are not only certain they are right (for example, forming a staff climate change group in defiance of the Chairman), but believe others should be obliged to conform to their thinking.
Twitter provides multiple examples of ABC personnel who hold that view. One is Nick McLaren, Acting Chief of Staff and Senior News Reporter with ABC Illawarra, who tweeted in a discussion about climate change: “This is a very interesting & increasingly relevant conversation — choosing to have no kids to reduce carbon emissions. And what if everybody was limited to 2 children so in theory they could just replace themselves?”
Comparisons with China’s treatment of dissenters, and its one child policy, are obvious.
If all this was coming from a commercial media source, consumers who preferred a broader narrow range of views could turn off and advertisers would follow. And of course, none of us is compelled to watch or listen to the ABC, notwithstanding the fact that we all pay for it.
The problem is that it’s happening at all. A publicly funded media organisation should reflect the great diversity of views of Australians, not simply the “progressive” views of its staff. They are quite entitled to hold those views and to express them, but they should not be excluding other points of view simply because they do not agree with them. This is Australia, not China.
Unfortunately, the chances of the workers collective at the ABC changing its spots is inconceivable. Simply closing it down and using the funds to pay for more schools and hospitals has a better chance of succeeding.
David Leyonhjelm is a former senator for the Liberal Democrats
This article first appeared in Penthouse Magazine
