medialens | When corporations own the news and advertisers 'sponsor' the shows,
journalists know they are above all answerable to the company managers
and allied interests who pay their salaries. The mere public, especially
voices of dissent, can be treated with indifference, even contempt.
Journalists have power without responsibility, and they know it.
On March 6, the fast-talking presenter of ABC Radio Triple 6's Mornings with Genevieve Jacobs in Canberra described the shameful suffering of indigenous Australians exposed by John Pilger's important film, Utopia.
'What veteran filmmaker John Pilger had to present for his film was in many ways a Third World country, a place where there is despair and dispossession, desperate injustice.'
Jacobs quoted football legend and 'Australian of the year', Adam Goodes, on 'mainstream' Australia's response to Pilger's film:
'Our response, our muted response, is a disgrace. It is disturbing and hurtful that we just don't evidently care all that much.'
Jacobs then interviewed Pilger, asking him:
'So what does that say about the state of the national debate?'
It was a good question, one that would soon return to haunt the questioner.
Like so many journalists responding to so much serious criticism,
Jacobs breezily insisted that her organisation was different, it had
embraced all points of view: 'John, that's a debate we're very aware of
here in Canberra... I think we're well aware of that, John!' she told Pilger repeatedly, who exposed the usual, key flaw in the argument:
'Intensely discussed, yes, you're absolutely right. But discussed in the narrowest terms.'
This recalled the sublime moment when Noam Chomsky rendered a brash
young Andrew Marr temporarily speechless, after the BBC interviewer had commented of the Gulf War:
'There was a great debate about whether there should have been a negotiated settlement.'
Chomsky interrupted: 'No, sorry, no, that's not [the] debate...'
Jacobs, though, was insistent:
'Certainly here in Canberra we do have that discussion vigorously and often... I have spoken to people in the studio... I think that has been widely discussed.'
Given that the issues had in fact been endlessly discussed, what on earth was the point of Pilger's film? Jacobs asked again:
'That's my question though – what do you bring that is new to this?'
Pilger replied: 'Well, have you seen the film?'
Jacobs: 'I haven't seen the film, but...'
Like her audience, Jacobs knew exactly what was coming next:
'Well then, how can we...? This is the problem, you see. And forgive me for raising it. How can you have a discussion with me about a film you haven't seen?... You say you're having a lot of debate there, but you apparently haven't watched the film that we're supposed to be talking about!'
Pilger's voice dropped and slowed as he circled the flailing interviewer like a 'Saltie' croc:
'I'm giving you the opportunity to explain to me and your listeners why you haven't, why you haven't watched the film before you discuss with the filmmaker the film?'
Jacobs explained that she hadn't seen the film 'because my producer
suggested to me this morning that it would be a really good idea to
discuss this'. But there was no place to hide:
'You run a programme, and with all respect to you, that's what Adam Goodes is talking about - that people like you cannot be bothered! And that's what he's writing about. Don't you find this so exquisitely ironic?'
Jacobs instantly shut down the debate and turned to emailed comments
sent in by listeners. Would these be favourable to the guest who had
just sunk the host? Jacobs blurted:
'Gus says to me, "Doesn't 'Triple 6' ever get tired of having people on the radio to lecture us about how racist we are? Didn't we say sorry? Are we going to move on?"'
And by way of balance:
'Rob says, "While I don't disagree with Pilger on many issues he's tackled over the years, his holier than thou, patronising tone alienates those who support his efforts and hardens the attitudes of those who don't."'
0 comments:
Post a Comment