Turn on, tune in: radio current affairs is here to stay

“News on the Radio”, said the American consultant breezily, “can never be more than a headline service”.

The speaker was billed as a radio ‘guru’ – a description which reminded me of the writer Francis Wheen’s definition of ‘guru’: a useful short word for people who can’t spell ‘charlatan’.

This guru had introduced herself to the seminar room by saying that she really appreciated the editions of AM, The World Today and PM that she had listened to.

But could she have listened to them at all?

For four decades the ABC’s Radio Current Affairs department has been giving people – even before it became the ABC’s News motto –“More Than The Headlines”.

PM had been on air in time for the first moon landing. It had charted the downfall of Prime Minister, the defeat of Billy McMahon, the rollercoaster ride of the Whitlam Government from 1972 -75, the Fraser years, the Hawke Ascendancy, the Hawke-Keating shootout (in a memorable three hour live broadcast), and the long struggle of John Howard to become and remain Prime Minister. It had done it in detail and it had done it with extended and often unforgettable interviews.

And here we were, being told that it could only ever be a headline service.

The advice the consultant offered was also about ‘personalising’ the news: for reporters and presenters to ‘relate’ each story to incidents in their own lives; not to be shy about their own opinions; to engage and involve the listener with their own opinions and personal experiences.

We were given this advice a few years ago; still the dawning, really, of the new media era.

And it seems to me in retrospect that our response – to reject most of what was recommended— was pretty crucial to the survival of PM to its fortieth year and may well stand us in good stead for a few more years to come.

Why? Because of one word: ‘authority’.

Broadcasting in the sixties, when PM started, was nothing if not authoritative.

Actors and announcers read the news in plummy tones – the emphasis was on a version of truth which almost seemed handed down from on high.

PM made a big dent in that perception, with journalists, people of genuine on-the-ground experience, reading their own scripts and doing their own interviews.

But its authority still came to a large degree from its monopoly position.

That’s because it was the only source you could turn to at 6 in the evening to tell you, not just what had happened, where, when and to whom, but also why.

PM had the telexes bringing in world news, and the ABC’s network of bureaux interstate and overseas.

You either listened to it – and watched TDT on the television – or you just waited for the next day’s paper.

None of that’s true any more, as we all know.

You can find out all about Michael Jackson’s death within minutes of the official announcement – or be getting descriptions of demonstrations in Tehran on Twitter even as they happen.

So we have to give people reasons to listen to us, not just to go searching on the internet.

And I argue that there are still two really strong reasons for listening to PM – whether you do so on a wireless, a digital radio, streaming on the net or as a podcast.

They are, first,  that the web is a huge and chaotic place, even for news,  and you may well want someone to guide you through it with a convenient package of material from an Australian perspective at the end of the day: and second, that when you do go looking for that package you will only trust it to come into your car or your living room or your earphones on a regular basis if it is trustworthy.

So that brings us back to the Authority word.

We no longer have authority automatically, by right of being the only game in town.

We have to earn it, and oddly enough the way to do that turns out in my view to be the old-fashioned way – rejecting the personalising and opinion-pushing version of news, and sticking to the facts, combined with solid story-telling.

It means understanding the difference between comment and analysis, and leaving the comment to the people we interview, while our reporters and presenters try to bring their experience to bear on the analysis.

I could see this lesson in operation when I was in hospital recently with too little to do and I joined Twitter.

I didn’t have many followers, as they’re called, until I started posting about Iran. I was there myself 29 years ago, and I’ve maintained an interest.  Mostly I posted links to stories elsewhere in the media,  while adding notes about their significance.

Over the subsequent weeks, hundreds of people started following me.

People were putting up messages suggesting I was worth following because I was insightful and well-informed.

After the first few days, the usefulness of the twitter posts from Iran had dropped because Government agents were using the same platform to put out black propaganda.

Suddenly, people wanted help knowing who to trust

My audience had boomed – because apparently I had credibility, from my twitter posts, and from writing blog posts like the one you’re reading now.

But the lesson I learned was that credibility has to be earned rather than just conferred.

So I don’t believe the doomsayers who doubt that current affairs radio has a future.

Even in the blogosphere, people need original reporting to blog about.

We have that reporting

We also have the experience, and we have the technology.

It’s never good to be complacent – but I think PM can continue to earn its credibility in the changing marketplace – and may now be able to look hopefully towards its fiftieth.

10 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:19pm | 07/07/09

      What a load of tosh.

      The ABC is just the left wing of the Labor Party on air.

      Few people listen to ABC current affairs, and those who believe it are misinformed. If the ABC had any value, it would be able to finance itself, rather than relying on government extortion through taxes.

      Down with the ABC propaganda machine! Long live the interwebs!

    • Mark R. says:

      10:12pm | 07/07/09

      Good one, Eric - and I suppose your political leanings are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun? You would be surprised how many people (including pollies of both persuasions) do actually listen to ABC current affairs programs to be informed - not misinformed, as you seem to think. The fact that the ABC seems to get an equal number of accusations of political bias from both ends of the spectrum would seem to indicate that they have the balance right. I, for one, am more than happy to pay my “8 cents a day” (CPI adjusted) for a quality national brodcaster.

    • Ashlee says:

      10:30pm | 07/07/09

      I agree completely.  And also, radio continues to be the one form of media you can consume legally while driving a car.  Nobody seems to ever remember this.I think there will always be a market for serious radio news… PM offers this when nearly every other radio station is playing commercial rubbish. Also, what people forget is that ABC’s output is tuned in to throughout the Asia Pacific, through Radio Australia.  In these developing areas adoption of new technology is not as high.

    • Louisa says:

      10:36pm | 07/07/09

      Mark R

      You must watch the childrens programmes then… and nothing else

    • Adam Dennis says:

      10:05am | 08/07/09

      As an reasonably regular PM listener, I’m fully in support of Mark Colvin’s comments. Social networking is an incredible boon, but it’s just as likely to spread misinformation (or even disinformation) as it is to be a source of truth. And even when the data is correct, it’s not necessarily information, i.e. I may peruse the data but still not be informed. On issues more complex than celebrity deaths we will continue to need the services of those people who put in the hard yards to uncover the entire story and its antecedents, who can lead us to a fuller understanding of the whys and wherefores. There will always be room for programs like PM.

    • Eric says:

      10:30am | 08/07/09

      Adam,

      You make the assumption that radio programs somehow “uncover the entire story”. This is incorrect.

      The analysis of issues by journalists is purely a matter of their opinion, not of information. Reporters selectively leave out facts which don’t fit the narrative on issues such as global warming.

      In fact, programs like PM offer nothing but a single perspective. On the other hand, the near-universal access to Internet media means that all perspectives can be accessed without biased media filters.

    • Richard says:

      05:59pm | 08/07/09

      I don’t see any of the commercial stations providing a PM type service, Eric. If it’s so easy why may that be? Too expensive and not enough punters care?

    • Eric says:

      06:57pm | 08/07/09

      Richard,

      Maybe it’s because a PM-type service is useless.

      If you want uninformed, politically correct opinions, go to ABC Radio.

      If you want intelligent analysis from a variety of well-informed perspectives, go to the Internet.

    • Luke says:

      04:21pm | 09/07/09

      The ABC has hire standards of fairness in reporting to adhere to than any other media in Australia.  There is more than opinion in an ABC radio currents affairs piece.  Although sometimes a reporter’s opinion will unwittingly colour the facts or put a slant on the issue.  It is unreasonable to say that all stories in the media are based on opinion.  To say the stories are uninformed is a baseless allegation.  Compared to what? Today Tonight?

      Eric, you are sounding so irrational I’m beginning to think your a stouge placed here to generate debate. 

      As for the radio consultant Mark Colvin is talking about, the application of her principles would make ABC Radio Current Affairs more like Today Tonight.

    • Jasper says:

      08:48pm | 09/07/09

      Eric, I get most of my news off the internet these days, primarily because the TV news is too shallow, but I really cannot agree with you that the Internet provides “intelligent analysis from a variety of well-informed perspectives”.

      It provides a huge quantity of barely literate diatribes from commentators who seem unable or unwilling to find the spell checker, use capitals or paragraphs or order their thoughts into anything remotely resembling a coherent article.

      I have come across some of the most vitriolic views with no fact-checking behind them masquerading as current affairs and opinion writers who believe that constructive debate means sticking to their version of the “truth” when all of the objective evidence proves them wrong.

      But worst of all, the Internet is now suffering from the same problem as TV and (most) radio news and current affairs: a lack of depth. If you can’t explain it in 5 paragraphs or less, no one seems interested.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter