“It’s what we heard that amazed us – and troubled us that the ABC had sunk so low. There was repartee about baby’s poop, bloodstained menstrual pads, mens’ cocks, a remark about snot with skin like an onion. At that point we went to bed.” Complaint received by The Age with regard to The Glasshouse, May, 2004
The Glasshouse has never really struck a cord with the traditional mature-age ABC audience. But even in 2004, on the eve of it’s 100th episode, The Age commented The Glasshouse “remains the only program currently on television taking regular pot shots at politicians and events with political currency”.
Fast forward to 2006, conservatives still hate it, and it’s one of few comedy programs addressing current political events. Add to the mix a war, sedition laws, and a new Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief for the ABC.
In this landscape, it perhaps should not have come as much of a surprise then that The Glasshouse has been axed, but by anyone’s assessment, the timing stinks. As one Australian comedian recently observed, “1. No, ‘The Glasshouse’ isn’t coming back next year; 2. Yes, this year has been the show’s highest ratings of its entire five year run; 3. No, it wasn’t our decision; 4. Yes, the ABC has recently appointed new board members and advertised for a ‘chief censor’ to clean up ‘political bias’ on its own network; 5. Yes, The Glasshouse was mentioned by the ABC board under the new ‘Editorial Guidelines’; 6. Why yes, there is a federal election next year.”
Apparently, we of the public are expected to believe this is all an unfortunate coincidence. Greens Leader Bob Brown sees it differently. “The Glasshouse regularly out-rates commercial programs in the same timeslot and has a dedicated audience of over 700,000 fans. The decision to axe it is purely political – this is censorship.”
Is it though? The Prime Minister has publicly announced he had nothing to do with the axing, and Glasshouse hosts Corinne Grant, Dave Hughes and Wil Anderson, known for their outrageous opinions, are surprisingly mild in their reactions.
Wil, especially known for his sharp tongue, is reminiscing about the days when their ratings were crap and the ABC still held their hand “the ABC was there for us when the numbers were so low even David Tench would look down at us… Which is why the sacking came as such a shock. It’s like we were in a relationship and at the start we didn’t have a job, sat on the couch and smoked bongs, and none of their friends liked us. But they believed in us so we cleaned ourselves up, got a job and won over their friends. And that’s when they said: “Look, it’s not you. We just want to spend more time with Adam Hills.”
In fairness to Wil, it’s highly likely his speech is affected by the gags and ties that usually accompany a contract with a television network; and he has agreed to speak with The Groggy Squirrel but is interstate and we haven’t yet been able to catch him. However, his current op-ed, opinion, and even his blogs don’t quite sound like Wil. For a man who I once saw deliver a moving, and hilarious solid six minutes on the importance of the audience accepting the word ‘fingering’ into their vocabulary, it seems someone’s stolen his nerve.
As for the ABC wanting to spend more time with Adam Hills, Spicks and Specks is safe, and Adam will be spending more time with the ABC. He did however, have this to say on The Glasshouse issue in his blog. “It has been the job of comedians back to the day of the court jester, to lampoon those in power. The “fool” as he was known, would often satirise the Kings and Queens of the day, in front of their faces, in such a way that the general public felt empowered, at least by the fact that they could laugh at their often tyrannical leaders. In a day and age in which sedition laws make it more and more difficult to speak out against bureaucratic nonsense, sometimes the fools are the only people that seem to make sense, (or at least, the only people allowed to make sense). My point is this – by sending up the shortcomings of the Government, The Glasshouse continued a tradition that is important to us all. As Groucho Marx once said “Because we are laughed at, people don’t realise how essential we are to their sanity.”“
Corinne also commented on The Glasshouse’s contribution to society in The Age. “The Glasshouse has always been irreverent, rude, crass and naughty. It has been deliberately antagonistic and unashamedly immature. I have never been so proud of anything in my life. I am proud that we push boundaries, that we upset people and that we make people angry. That means they’re thinking and there should be more television that makes us do that.”
In fact, it’s Corinne who’s perhaps the most opinionated, and sincere about the situation. She also said “I am puzzled and incredibly sad that the show is ending. We were enjoying our best ratings ever, the show has been nominated for another AFI award and I had just found my name as the answer to a quiz question in a bottle-top. I honestly don’t know why they’ve chosen to cancel us.”
It’s the last sentence that’s really interesting. While we’d all like to think The Glasshouse team know why they’ve been axed and aren’t telling. It seems no-one’s had the courtesy to tell them. Although that doesn’t mean they, and others, don’t have an idea.
One Melbourne comic, close to Wil, recently blogged ‘This is a direct result of the new laws the Government has introduced…and the problem is the Government relies on people not doing anything about it, feeling like they’re totally beaten on all fronts. Well kids we live in a democracy, we have the right to make our views be known. I know some of you probably think “What is the point?” but that is a defeatist attitude.’
It’s a bold statement, and perhaps a dangerous one in these litigious times, but refreshing in its passion and honesty.
Senator Brown agrees the current Government needs a wake up call, ‘The Howard government has shown that it lacks that most Australian of values – a self-deprecating sense of humour.’
While Mr Howard reports he doesn’t regularly watch The Glasshouse, it appears some of his senators do. In a recent Senate Estimates Committee examination of the ABC, Senator Fierravanti-Wells accused “one of your presenters, Corinne Grant, The Glasshouse, is also the public face of the union’s anti-government IR campaign. She has also evidently produced a radio ad for the unions. I have to say that a very cosy arrangement between the unions and the ABC troubles me.”
In response, feisty (and hilarious) Corinne wrote in The Age “MCing one rally does not make me Kim Jong-Il. Just because it’s called the Senate Estimates Committee doesn’t mean you get to estimate reality. Playing fast and loose with the truth and exaggerating facts to prove some spurious argument is my job, Senator, not yours. May I suggest that, instead of riffling through the private lives of ABC presenters, you take up knitting instead? Perhaps you could knit yourself a brain. (Too far? Bugger it, we’ve only got four weeks left.)’‘
Corinne also wrote “I’m quite flattered everyone keeps calling the show ‘anti-Government’ and ‘political’. I thought we just told dick jokes.”
So what if the show is political, what if it is anti-government? What current-affairs comedy hasn’t been from time to time? It’s a free country isn’t it? We have a right to freedom of speech, don’t we? Of course we do! Don’t we? Well. Not exactly.
You may recall some discussion some time ago about an Anti-terrorism Bill. Specifically, discussion about sedition. The bill sought to amend the Criminal Code to include new laws regarding sedition. In many people’s views, those new amendments broadened the scope of the laws so much that, potentially, people who had no intent on terrorism could be imprisoned.
While it’s not easy to define ‘sedition’, the Crimes Act describes seditious intention as follows:
‘seditious intention means an intention to use force or violence to effect any of the following purposes:
to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt;
to urge disaffection against the following:
the Constitution;
the Government of the Commonwealth;
either House of the Parliament;
to urge another person to attempt to procure a change, otherwise than by lawful means, to any matter established by law of the Commonwealth;
to promote feelings of ill will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.’
The new laws include actions which are not violent or even forceful as seditious acts, one might only ‘urge’ someone to sympathise with a nation we’re at war with to be acting seditiously. Not only this, but it doesn’t need to be their intention to do this, they may act recklessly and still be charged. Nor does anyone need to be affected by their actions. It’s a pretty scary thought. Even scarier, it’s a criminal charge and carries a seven year jail term.
The changes broaden the law’s reach so much in fact that Peter Gray of Senior Counsel (Barrister) said (in an advice prepared for Peter Garrett in October 2005), “Australians involved in creative or artistic fields seem to me to be particularly vulnerable to the risk of prosecution under the regime to be introduced by the Bill.”
Mr Gray’s opinion went on to say:
‘Risk of contraventions of provisions of the Bill would arise, perhaps in a more acute way, with for example:
a play or film or television programme depicting in a sympathetic or even non-hostile way the policies or strategies or motivations of the Iraqi insurgents, or of al-Quaida, or of other groups which may from time to time be at war with or engaged in armed hostilities with Australia
a newspaper or magazine article, or book, which took a similar non-critical or explanatory approach, even if based on factual material which was completely accurate
a song, or picture, or written work, which expressed corresponding sentiments or which utilised the musical or artistic or literary traditions or styles associated with the culture of a hostile organisation or country in a way which signified sympathy with or admiration of that culture
any imaginative/creative work, (literary, visual or other) which repeated or included seditious views expressed by others.
In all of these hypothetical cases, the play, or film, or book, or song, or picture, or television programme could well be found to constitute, objectively, the “urging”, of a person or persons exposed to it to engage in proscribed conduct. In any such case, ordinarily all of those involved in the dissemination of such works would potentially be guilty of sedition under the Bill: writers, directors, producers, actors, singers, painters, editors, publishers, distributors, broadcasters. All would arguably have “urged” such conduct.’
The laws have been passed, with little amendment to the Bill Peter Gray QC advised on. It’s a scary situation with little foreseeable solution. As Peter Garrett puts it “Mr Howard’s sometimes flippant defence … is short of reassuring … we believe the laws threaten with criminal sanctions those who exercise their democratic right to speak out or those who report what they say.”
To my understanding, this means publicly sympathising with nations we are at war with is effectively illegal. There is no mention of exception for artists or satire, and we would be looking to a defence of good faith which is narrow and unclear. Peter Garrett spoke to this at the Second reading of the Anti-terrorism bill and said “The good faith defence clearly does not protect free speech and freedom of artistic expression; indeed it makes no mention of these categories of activity at all.”
The good news is no-one’s been prosecuted for sedition in Australia for decades. The bad news is the laws have just been dusted off and updated. So what does that mean for us here and now? I’m perhaps only talking for my generation, but I take freedom of speech for granted. I do know though, that changes in laws eventually filter down to change in policy, not because corporations want to follow laws, but because they need to manage risk. There’s no released connection between sedition and the ABC’s sudden concern for a bias they’ve been accused of for years, but it’s certainly food for thought.
Mark Scott, new Managing Director of the ABC, whilst addressing The Sydney Institute discussed the new editorial policies of the ABC, describing them as “the best means through which the ABC can, in years ahead, live up both to the trust that is placed in it, and the requirements of the ABC Act.”
He said “The new Editorial Policies are contained in a document that runs to some 50 pages, but let me outline for you a few highlights.” Included in Mark’s highlights is “for opinion programs or programs of topical and factual content, individual items of content can take a particular perspective, but the ABC must be able to demonstrate that it has provided audiences with a range of different perspectives on the subject …”
He claims “We want passion and conviction. But passion and conviction that comes from the widest range of perspectives on the things that matter for all Australians.” Pleasing all of the people all of the time, has of course, historically, been wildly successful. How might one give a broad opinion? Mark says “The new category of Opinion will be content presented from a partisan point of view about a matter of public contention. This content will be signposted as opinion and the impartiality test will be – over a period of time – has the ABC presented a plurality of views?”
That’s quite an ask, and hard to monitor, but Mark’s got that covered also, with a new position “The Director of Editorial Policies will report to me in my role as Editor-in-Chief of the ABC. This Executive will have the ability to undertake independent audits on ABC programs…”
Mark says he’s considered the consequences “I have reflected at length whether focusing on risk minimisation and policy compliance will have the effect of putting our journalists and content makers in unsustainable straitjackets. But to achieve great journalism, you need to practice good journalism. Journalism that is fair, accurate, balanced and objective. Journalism that lets the facts speak rather than the private opinions of a reporter. Journalism that is rounded and complete rather than half-baked and half-told. The ABC has to say no to any such thoughts and it’s a no that begins with an ethical rejection, and ends with a legal one – Section 8 of the ABC Act – which says we must be independent, accurate and impartial.”
As to challenging the Government, Mark had this to say “I think there is some truth about serious-minded broadcasters and print journalists – that they want to play the role of the leader of the opposition. To challenge, to question, to contest. It is a style of journalism widely practised, but I do not think it is, of itself, biased or inherently disrespectful… But under our new editorial policies, we will be looking for further diversity of voices – ensuring the ABC is the town square where debate can flourish and different voices heard. I have encouraged the Director of Television to work with the Media Watch team to review their format and content next year to ensure there is more opportunity for debate and discussion around contentious and important issues. It is a popular program, has a loyal following and I hope, a long future at the ABC.” A plan for Media Watch it seems, but no suggestions for The Glasshouse? Surely there’s room at the table for Andrew Bolt?
So are the new policies a reasonable step towards meeting legal and risk management obligations? The Age recently reported “Dempster, presenter of Stateline in NSW, said ABC staff were already accountable for their performance under an exhaustive and appropriate set of internal and external procedures. “What’s another one? The more the merrier,” he said in a sarcastic tone, it needs to be said, as matters of tone and inflection are also covered in the new guidelines.”
Whilst Labor’s communications spokesman, Stephen Conroy, was more direct: ‘This is just an attempt by a board stacked with ideological zealots to remake the ABC in its own extreme conservative image. The new guidelines are an attempt to bully and intimidate ABC staff into reflecting the Government’s biases. The national broadcaster shouldn’t be used to settle scores in the culture wars, the ABC belongs to all Australians.’
Let’s hope so.
You can catch Wil, Corinne and Hughsey on the ABC until 29 November 2006.
Wil says “We are going to go out guns a’blazin I promise.”
Despite bleak hope for a resurrection of The Glasshouse, you can make your view heard by:
Signing the petition here
Contacting the ABC: Phone 03 9626 1600 or 02 8333 1500, write to Mr Mark Scott, ABC Managing Director by email or to ABC, GPO Box 9994, Sydney 2001