Coronation dreamin'
It’s been the talk of Australian journalism for two weeks now: who is to blame for ABC TV host Stan Grant temporarily standing down as host of Q+A following criticism of his coronation day articulation of the ongoing impact of colonial conquest on the Indigenous population.
Should News Corp shoulder the blame because it published some 30 pieces criticising Grant? Or the social media racists who may have taken their cue from that criticism? Or the ABC itself?
In a withering article published on the ABC site, Grant, a Wiradjuri man, didn’t name names. But he did point the finger at ABC management, excepting the head of the news division Justin Stevens. As for the rest of ABC management and staff, none, he said, had stuck up for him as the criticism flowed over his passionate elucidation of the harm and grief caused by the UK’s colonisation of this land on a panel broadcasting just before the coronation ceremony.
As Derek has written, the ABC Ombudsman has noted the panel did not breach the corporation’s impartiality rules but it was ‘jarring and distracting for some in the audience’. Viewers complained too, and in their droves. The ABC received some 1,832 complaints, which is a lot.
The ABC had 7 months’ notice of the coronation date, which is a long time in the world of television. It is anyone’s guess why it chose to cobble together a panel, the cheapest of all television formats, to proffer the ABC’s taxpaying owners, broadcasting a few hours before the event. Surely the hard, uncomfortable truth deserved more than a panel. There was scope for the ABC to be ambitious with its coronation coverage, to have produced a documentary on the dispossession of Australia’s Indigenous population and the ongoing trauma it has inflicted. Enough time even to have produced a documentary on the ongoing trauma of all the Indigenous populations around the British empire. ABC Managing Director, David Anderson says the panel was an appropriate editorial decision even if 1,832 complainants and the ABC own ombudsman beg to differ.
When it comes to hard truths, there’ll always be arguments as to why they should or shouldn’t be aired at any particular time. But if it was going to choose the cheap option, why the ABC decided to place the sole burden of speaking to such horrific history on the shoulders of Stan Grant – and why it was so tardy in defending him against the utterly predictable onslaught – is strange.
And is News Corp absolved of any blame? Not entirely. It loves to hate the ABC and its tone is often shrill. However, there was a story of public interest value in the number of complaints to the ABC about the broadcast, and what that said about where Australia finds itself in 2023 as it prepares to vote in a referendum on The Voice and as the country has space to contemplate a future as a republic.
Blaming News Corp for Grant’s decision to take a break from the ABC is odd when the decision to place Grant in the firing line on a panel was the ABC’s alone. With so many options available to it, the ABC chose that moment on that day to discuss issues fundamental to Australian identity, in a way that attracted criticism when it could have been credit.
Monica Attard, CMT Co-Director
This article is from our fortnightly newsletter published on 2 June 2023.
To read the newsletter in full, click here. Subscribe here.
