Is ABC management complicit in letting senior on-air talent promote the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and its sponsors, without declaring conflicts of interest?
Two senior correspondents at Australia’s national broadcaster have links to defence industries and the defence establishment which have possibly compromised their impartiality.
The non-disclosure of outside associations between ABC presenters and people they interview is a breach of the ABC Charter and its Editorial Policies.
International Affairs Analyst, Stan Grant has conducted interviews with researchers from ASPI (Australian Strategic Policy Institute) without disclosing on-air his position as a Senior Fellow with ASPI.
Following enquiries to the ABC by APAC News, ASPI has scrubbed references to Grant as a Senior Fellow from its website. Though a number of videos of Grant’s ASPI work remain on the ASPI YouTube channel, the most recent videos were uploaded in the past 24 hours.
For ABC News he has interviewed seven analysts from ASPI on numerous occasions. In his role with ASPI he has interviewed former prime minister John Howard, former opposition leader Kim Beazley and former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt.
Defence reporter Andrew Greene has also relied heavily on ASPI for comment; in addition he has spoken at events and appeared in a corporate video for ASPI sponsor BAE Systems.
Does the ABC Charter apply?
The ABC has a Charter and editorial guidelines that specifically deal with issues such as bias and conflicts of interest. However, when it comes to ASPI, and reporting on defence industries, the application of these standards is unclear.
News director Gavin Morris referred questions to an ABC spokesperson, who said the ABC does not comment on editorial matters and had “no comment” on specific issues raised in this story.
Speaking off the record, one ABC News journalist says there is no editorial pressure to seek comment from ASPI or “to produce stories that fit ASPI’s narrative”. However, ABC24 and the Canberra bureau regularly seek expert ‘independent’ commentary from ASPI on defence and security matters.
China is overwhelmingly the topic of discussion for ASPI analysts appearing on the ABC and they consistently paint China as a major security threat and promote the position that Australia’s biggest economic partner should be treated as an adversary. This position has long been rejected by former prime ministers, foreign ministers and diplomats, and it is also wearing thin with the defence establishment.
At a major forum held at the Lowy Institute earlier this month, former chief of Australia’s Defence Forces, Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston (Retd), declared, “China is our partner, China is not our enemy, let’s get that very straight.” His comments were carried across all the major media — the ABC did not produce a report.
ASPI is a Commonwealth company, which is accountable to parliament and relies on the Defence Department for the bulk of its funding. Is the ABC obliged to disclose this fact?
Behind the wall
In September the ABC launched a new weekly program called Behind the Wall. Hosted by Stan Grant it informs viewers about “China and its complex relationships with Australia and the rest of the world”.
The debut guest was Nathan Ruser, a 22-year-old “China expert” who doesn’t speak Chinese, has never been to China and there is no evidence he graduated from ANU where he was undertaking a course Middle-Eastern studies.
Ruser is, however, a researcher at ASPI. At the time of that interview Grant was listed on the ASPI website as a Senior Fellow. ABC’s conflict of interest policy suggests he should have disclosed he was interviewing someone from an organisation to which he is associated.
An Australian researcher who has seen the interview says Ruser relied on “a considerable number of unverifiable facts.” Adding, “It seems odd a twenty-something analyst with no background in strategic studies would front a major research project for a leading think-tank. That is the question I would be asking.”
This researcher did not want to be identified because “Ruser is very aggressive on social media”. His Twitter handle reads: “Picking quarrels and provoking trouble.”
Grant’s victimization in China?
In February 2020, Grant appeared as a guest on ABC’s Q&A program, recounting his ill treatment as CNN’s China journalist in the early 2000s. He said, “We were often physically assaulted while trying to get to speak to people in many parts of China.”
Last month at ABC online, he wrote, “My family was under constant surveillance, if we had a meal outside our home with friends, police would take photographs. My phone was tapped and our house was bugged. When I was away on assignment the police would come to my home, question and intimidate my children.”
However, for the greater part of his time in Beijing his Australian-born wife Tracey Holmes worked for the Chinese government—which he asserts subjected him to “constant” harassment.
Holmes was a presenter with state-owned television network CCTV and both she and Grant appeared in a documentary produced by a state-aligned media company. Much of it was filmed in their home and the interviews they gave did not suggest the couple lived in fear of intimidation.
ABC and ASPI’s united front
Earlier this month Chinese state-owned media outlet China Daily released a mini documentary highly critical of ASPI and its funding sources—including the US Government, which provided $1.37 million last year.
Former Australian Ambassador to China, Geoff Raby and Labor-aligned YouTube blogger Jordan Shanks were interviewed. Shanks accused the ABC of actively promoting ASPI’s narrative. The ABC shot back with a news report dismissing China Daily’s allegations.
The story’s author, defence correspondent Andrew Greene included six paragraphs of rebuttal quotes from ASPI chief Peter Jennings. No space for comment was provided to Raby or Shanks.
Khaki Greene
In December last year, Greene addressed The Royal United Service Institute for Defence and Security Studies. His speech was very supportive of Australia’s security and intelligence agencies, specifically citing the work of ASPI to support his thesis, saying:
“A person who has emerged in recent years with great insights… is a young gentleman by the name of Alex Joske at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.”
ANDREW GREENE, ABC DEFENCE REPORTER
Joske has been interviewed numerous times on ABC.
The ABC reporter spoke positively about a raft of national security policies which restrict individual freedoms in Australia, saying, “We’ve got preventative detention, travel bans, metadata, secrecy over court cases and all of these have slid seamlessly off the legislative assembly line.”
He added, “Canberra’s national security community is… hankering for scalps to be delivered.”
Greene also made disparaging comments about former Prime Minister Paul Keating, in relation to a 2019 remark when Keating suggested Australia’s spy agencies were being run by “nutters”.
At that time, Greene filed a report on Keating, he sought just one expert view—that of ASPI Executive Director Peter Jennings.
Best of British
In 2017, Greene took part in a conference for British arms manufacturer BAE Systems and his biography remains on the company’s website. He also spoke in a video presentation in which he appeared in front of a BAE Systems logo backdrop.
In February Greene filed a television news story on the progress of Australia’s new $35 billion naval frigates being built by BAE Systems. Of the first 26 images in that news report, 24 came straight out of a BAE Systems corporate video.
The BAE Systems logo appeared on screen 12 times throughout Greene’s two-minute report, it also includes a positive sound bite from the chief of BAE Systems in Australia Gabby Costigan, where she is not identified to ABC viewers.
The ABC Charter provides strict editorial guidelines on the identification of commercial organisations and products, which prohibit the naming of brands across its broadcasting.
ABC presenters are not permitted to name brands such as Coca-Cola on air, which raises the question why is an ABC defence correspondent allowed to identify the brand of a weapons maker no fewer than 12 times in one story?
Republished with permission from APAC.News
Marcus Reubenstein is an independent journalist with more than twenty-five years of media experience, having previously been a staffer with a federal Liberal Party senator from 1992 to 1994. He spent five years at Seven News in Sydney and seven years at SBS World News where he was a senior correspondent. As a print journalist he has contributed to most of Australia’s major news outlets. Internationally he has worked on assignments for CNN, Eurosport and the Olympic Games Broadcasting Service. He is the founder and editor of Asian business new website, APAC Business Review.
Comments
12 responses to “ASPI’s Broadcasting Corporation?”
Think we need to be prepared for more of the same and beware of reliance upon many single policy motivated think tanks, masquerading as objective experts, yet not countered (enough) by critical journalism.
Modern ‘media gaming’ is often about using mainstream media, public broadcasters and related as PR delivery systems; especially when public broadcasters are deemed to be more trustworthy (hence a threat to be discredited, win win).
Marcus, my comment is not so much about non-disclosure but about some mention of any role of APSI in this government’s intention for Oz to become a major arms manufacturer in the region. If that happens, war will become big business for Oz just as it has been for decades for the US. Poor fella, my country!
Whatever may be Andrew Greene’s sins of non-disclosure, I am delighted by his phrase, “airs of antipodean aristocracy” wrt to one Alexander Downer.
A very important article by Marcus Reubenstein and I am so glad that P and I published it. For some time I have had no doubt about the obvious Andrew Greene -ASPI – Peter Jennings – US bias. Good to see it confirmed. If we are looking for agents of foreign [US] influence this is a good place to start looking. The trail is clear .
I am sorry about Stan Grant. I have always thought highly of him. But other former idols of mine at ABC have been found in recent years to have feet of clay, so maybe Stan does too.
Thanks Tony, P&I has proved itself a vitally important forum for accountability and sensible policy debate in trying times. Aside from its funding and bias, ASPI seeks to tightly control all of its messaging (just look at its Wikipedia page all but reference on this “objective” summary is a direct or indirect ASPI source – and of course ASPI employs a team of cyber experts!) The ABC needs to lift its game.
Thankyou Marcus – for what is effectively whistle-blowing, as the ABC by failing to disclose details of links that it must be aware of is effectively deceiving listeners, and in the interests of US and UK defence sponsors. I believe that Andrew Greene is also associated with an American – Australia partnership group, as well as having access to defence department and foreign affairs business. His recent reporting on the Afghan war crimes revelations was striking in its contrast with that of Mark Willacy, who remains one of the ABC’s leading investigative journalists of integrity.
What this illustrates is yet again the need for an Integrity Commission with powers to investigate matters normally protected under “National Security” concerns, but also illustrates the importance of truly independent media. In my own conversation with SBS over its presentation of some foreign conflicts and disputes, I have come up against the same “wall” that protects program producers from criticism over bias, when presenting the truth would conflict with the acceptable – government – narrative. And that currently is the US-NATO narrative.
Thanks David, spot on. Despite my serious reservations in relation to ASPI, I do very much support the ABC and it’s need to be a voice for accountability not for special interest.
Marcus, thank you for this detailed analysis of the ABC/ASPI connection. I have for many months now been concerned at the easy access that ASPI has with the ABC – and SBS – but I did not realise how ‘in house’ the connection was; any reference to ASPI is usually a very fleeting tag.
That ASPI is funded in large part by western members of the military/industrial/information complex – and thus has a bias for confrontation – is not, of course, disclosed
Thanks Colin, SBS where I was in the newsroom for many years generally does not have an editorial bias in this area, I think the SBS Canberra bureau has been sucked into the Defence/Security narrative. If they want to continue with their heavy use of ASPI analysts I think it is up to the ABC to (a) introduce ASPI as a “Defence Department-funded commonwealth company” then back announce, or include in the story that “ASPI is also funded by the United States government”; and (b) find an academic expert or another think tank which will present a contrary view in the same story.
Marcus,
I completed studies in East Asian History at University in 1980 so maybe like many I need to and I am currently updating myself on current developments in China under the current CCP leadership. I am concerned at your allegations concerning Stan Grant and Andrew Greene and their stance towards China.However I do not accept that the ABC news is overly anti-Chinese in its coverage of events in the East Asian region. In one respect I can understand that China, like the U.S becomes very paranoid when foreign military forces come too close to their territory. The “Cuban Crisis” in 1964 clearly illustrates that response as does China’s militarization of atolls and cays in the South China Sea. I am concerned when Australian Navy units , under U.S. pressure, engage in military exercises in the disputed region, now including the Northern Indian Ocean. That is quite provocative as would similar exercises by China around Hawaii or the U.S. West Coast . Misunderstanding and grandstanding tactics were major trigger points for starting World Wars I and II.Today with the threat of nuclear annihilation such tactics are very dangerous to the whole of mankind .
Hi Gavin, Stan Grant is on the public record (in particular at ABC) voicing considerable opposition to China; his views are well founded on his extensive time in China – he has every right to those views, he had many run ins with authorities when he was CNN’s Beijing correspondent and his arguments are based (for the most part) on fact. The question I pose is does the ABC have an obligation to point out that Stan has considerable involvement in an organisation (ASPI) well known for its anti-China views?
The broader issue I raised is of ABC’s non-disclosure of the fact that ASPI is a commonwealth company which presently receives $1.3 million in US government funding – it is not independent and the ABC should be asked why it constantly promotes ASPI comment, and research, as if it were. Cheers, Marcus
Hi Marcus,
Yes I see your point about the rampant non disclosure of connections or conflicts of interest involving journalists these days on all platforms .Unfortunately many Presenters and Journos are guilty of this offense, I suspect even more on social media . Unfortunately ACMA is a total joke as they don’t enforce the rules. All I can suggest is that you address your concerns to Ita Butrose and the ABC Board. I did over the scrapping of the 7.45 am News .To my surprise I received a letter from Ita, but she was simply toeing the ‘company line’.
I don’t know much about ASPI so I need to do some homework before commenting.
Best wishes,
Gavin
ASPI gets gets plenty of free hits in Murdoch and Nine media – they are commercial outlets entitled to whatever editorial bias they choose. However, the ABC has statutory requirements which many feel have not been upheld. Personally, I feel it is mainly an issue of non-disclosure more than bias. Cheers, Marcus