Charlottesville, guns, Trump-phobia and 'Their ABC’s groupthink'

Many Australians are unlikely to know that Section 8 of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (the Act) imposes duties on the ABC Board including duties "(b) to maintain the independence and integrity of the Corporation" and "(c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism".

Those same Australians are also unlikely to know that in its latest Annual Report (2019) the ABC boasts that it "continues to be the home and source of Australian stories", that its commitment to "innovation in storytelling" is stronger than ever, and that Australians "expect" the ABC to produce "news and current affairs coverage that holds power to account and contributes to a healthy democratic process" (whatever those ideological invocations might mean), and that the "ABC is proud to provide such a service [and] is truly Yours."

Readers who are regular viewers of ABC TV news will not need to be reminded that recently the national broadcaster began skiting about how much smarter it is than all us plebs and plodders: "We don't just tell the stories that matter! We tell you why they matter to you!" Similarly, the promo for the podcast The Party Room teasingly inquires "Want to know what's really going on in Parliament House? and instructs us from on high that the presenters "give you the political analysis that matters and explain what it means for you."

There is plenty of scope here for the satirist, if only something faintly resembling iconoclastic political satire had survived in this era of politically correct conformity. The grim reality is that nowadays what the ABC passes off as news and current affairs is the product of a form of postmodern "Groupthink". Information - "stories" and "storytelling" of varying degrees of coherence and reliability is drenched in the current opinionated ABC "line". That in-house worldview is dictated by the ABC's zealous ideological attachment to the rigid neo-puritanical censoriousness of approved (and disapproved) group "identity". Nothing in the Act authorises the national broadcaster to engage in such blatant partisan politicking, or any politicking.

The extent to which the ABC has strayed from strict compliance with its unique statutory duties as the independent national broadcaster (to which attaches the explicit legal privilege of immunity from enforceability in legal proceedings) is on daily display in its "news/current affairs" coverage of the United States of America. And, since the 2016 US presidential election, the centrepiece of the ABC's own proud daily hate speech "narrative", is its loathing of the 45th President of the US.

For example, beyond being reminded of the tragic deaths of three Virginians, one of whom was murdered by a (Far-Right) man who drove a motor vehicle into a group of counter-protestors, Australians seeking "news and information" about the appalling lawlessness whichoccurred in Charlottesville, Virginia on 12 August 2017 (and the ongoing controversy) will receive no assistance from using a variety of search terms combined with the name "Charlottesville" on the ABC web site. They will be exposed to ill-informed ABC opinion about the root causes of the deaths, personal injuries and property damage which stemmed from the decision of the City of Charlottesville in late 2016 to remove two US Civil War monuments and to rename the respective city parks in which they had been erected.

What little is there includes a bizarre speculative foray by the ABC into the minds of some members of Far-Right armed militias (specifically, individuals associated with Jason Kessler) and Far-Left armed militias (specifically members of "Redneck Revolt"). The proximate cause of the lawlessness was the fact that those armed militias' make irreconcilable claims regarding the interaction of the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution. Their conduct in Charlottesville demonstrates that they are joined at the hip in their commitment to bear arms in pursuit of their political objectives.

The First Amendment relevantly forbids the US Congress from making any law "abridging the freedom of speech [and] of the press, [and] the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Second Amendment provides as follows: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Far-Left armed militia members were in Charlottesville to prevent a protest by a group of Far-Right folks for which the City had given Kessler a permit. Kessler's group was outnumbered by a group of persons who had also obtained a permit to stage a counter-protest in support of the City Council's decision. There is some evidence that the permitted peaceful protest did not occur because it was violently blockaded by armed Far-Left militia members. The opposing armed Second Amendment warriors then resorted to violence (again, there is some evidence that it was provoked by armed Far-Left militia members), roaming the streets and parks of Charlottesville brawling and brandishing weapons.

Last November, following an election in which proposed stricter gun control laws were a major issue, the Democratic Party regained majority status in both Houses of the Virginia legislature. The winning side promptly introduced gun control Bills. Opponents of the reforms proposed a rally in Capitol Square in Richmond in late January 2020.

On 17 January 2020, Ralph Northam, the Democratic Party candidate who had been elected Governor of Virginia in November 2017, made an Executive Order referring to the breakdown of public order in Charlottesville, and declaring that a state of emergency would exist during the period 17-21 January 2020. The order provided that no weapons including firearms were to be carried or possessed in the area in Richmond known as Capitol Square. The rally was rowdy, but order was maintained.

It may not accord with the ABC's "innovative storytelling" line but, whether or not Civil War monuments should be retained or removed from public display, or supplemented by on-site "interpretative" displays, is a matter of fiercely contested opinion. At a time when nobody could say with certainty what accounted for the lawlessness in Charlottesville, President Trump was repeatedly pressed by his antagonists in the US media for his reaction. He made more than one public comment about had happened including this passing observation - taken out of context by the ABC: "Not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists, by any stretch . . . [there were] very fine people on both sides".

Instead of confining itself to reporting the easily ascertainable known context and then carefully supplementing its reporting as verifiable facts emerged about what had happened on 12 August 2017, (which, as indicated below, took many months of painstaking investigation), the ABC was carried away by its institutional animosity to President Trump. In its earliest explicit web site editorial piece on 23 August under the tendentious headline "Donald Trump's comments on Charlottesville legitimize violence by right-wing extremists". In mid-July 2019, another anti-Trump piece used the same misleading and deceptive, by omission, headline.

Among the facts which occurred prior to 12 August 2017 were the City of Charlottesville's public decision-making process and the associated public debate about the Civil War monuments, the legal challenge to the validity of the Council's decision (which succeeded in 2019 and will likely provoke an appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia), the Council's revocation and discriminatory variation of the permit issued to Jason Kessler, and his successful First Amendment-based challenge to the legality of that decision in the US District Court in Charlottesville on 11 August 2017.

Among the facts which occurred between 12 August 2017 and 15 January 2018 were the release of the very detailed report of the independent official inquiry regarding the multiple causes of, and shared individual and official responsibility for, the violence on 12 August 2017, and the City of Charlottesville's application for an injunction to prevent armed Left-Wing militias (including "Redneck Revolt") and Right-Wing militias from returning to Charlottesville on 12 August 2018. The ABC's ostensible overall indifference to the facts, if tested by an online search of its web site, may well explain why it has missed or has chosen to ignore the pending civil case against Jason Kessler which is scheduled for trial later this year.

At the very least, it is open to infer that the ABC's assessment from the outset was (and remains) that the Charlottesville lawlessness was attributable solely to the violence of members of Far-Right armed militia groups, and that, by his quoted words, the President had sought to "legitimize"that violence. If the ABC's Charlottesville "story"-line had gone no further, the full gravity of the foregoing reckless libel becomes obvious when each omitted material fact about what actually occurred before, on and after 12 August 2017 is set out in full.

However, the ABC's willingness to disregard its unique obligations by disseminating a personal attack masquerading as news/current affairs reporting, was seriously aggravated by the episode of Correspondents Report entitled "Redneck Revolt", broadcast by ABC-TV on 15 January 2018.

That programme presented the "Redneck Revolt" armed militia group as proof of an actual, as distinct from an alleged, substantial and understandable contrast between that group's willingness to engage in armed violence to achieve its political objectives, and the violence of Far-Right armed militias.

Among many questions which Australians are entitled to ask are the following: What induced the ABC to make a programme in which it can be seen to be cosying-up to the odious "Redneck Revolt" armed militia group, and appearing to sympathise with its manifestly spurious support for armed/violent protest? Had the ABC bothered to acquaint itself with the official report on what had occurred in Charlottesville, and with the pending application for a court order preventing "Redneck Revolt" and other armed militia groups from returning to make trouble in Charlottesville again?

From the day the official inquiry was announced, it ought to have been obvious to our national broadcaster that it would be the height of folly to outlay a dollar of the nation's scarce public money to indulge Redneck Revolt's smug, rifle-toting leader by enabling him to make the contemptibly absurd claims that "when the Left uses violence in the rare cases that it happens, it's resistance"and that his armed troops were in Charlottesville to provide a "public service". This was made worse by the ABC's fatuous voiceover observation that "a year into Donald Trump's presidency resurgent white supremacists are preaching hate. Now left-wing activists are hitting back with their own shock tactics."

Furthermore, if the ABC had been adhering to its statutory obligations, it would have reported on the progress of the City of Charlottesville's injunction application. If it was doing that unaffected by opinionated "storytelling" narratives, it would have become aware of the nauseating mouthing-off by the "Redneck Revolt" crowd about the terrible injustice of their being hauled into court by the City.

If anyone in the ABC is inclined to engage in some elementary factual investigation, it will quickly reveal that, in the case of the violent "Redneck Revolt" militia members - the courageous "left-wing activists hitting back with their own shock tactics"as public protectors – it ignominiously consented to the Court's final decree keeping them and their no less odious violent comrades-in-arms (Far-Left and Far-Right) out of Charlottesville.