ABC’s Media Watch blinded by transphobic agenda
For more than 30 years, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has aired Media Watch - a television programme dedicated to shining a spotlight on problematic media, usually Australian journalistic media. The show describes itself as "Australia's leading forum for media analysis and critique, [...] exposing conflicts of interest, journalistic deceit, misrepresentation, manipulation and plagiarism…" and prides itself of being “the show everyone loves until they’re on it.” Among the misspelled supers and funny interview gaffes, the show has been notable for covering serious stories such as the “Cash for Comment” affair where two talkback radio hosts were found to have not disclosed sponsorships received in exchange for favourable on-air comments.
Unsurprisingly, Media Watch’s reputation for exposing negative aspects of Australian media was recently called into question after they chose to write, record, edit and air two segments with a heavy anti-transgender slant. The two segments, “ABC Skips Tavistock” from episode 27 which aired on August 15, 2022, and “ACON & the ABC” from episode 35 which aired on October 17, 2022, were not in response to any media published in Australia.
Episode 27 was about encouraging the ABC to publish content regarding: the closure of Tavistock Clinic in the UK, the concerns about gender identity clinics for trans kids, and the need for more coverage on detransitioners.
Episode 35 continued in a similar fashion by portraying trans people as hostile for silencing a “debate”, and alleging that an LGBTQ+ organisation’s workplace inclusion and diversity program is influencing the stories and media at the ABC.
Contrary to what some who work on the show may believe, Media Watch has never been above the ABC and it is very uncharacteristic for it to be throwing its weight at a marginalised community unprovoked, especially in a year where transgender people in Australia have endured the Religious Discrimination Bill, the Australian Federal Election, various sporting bans, various media “debates”, news of anti-trans legislation being enacted in other countries, and the ongoing violence and discrimination faced on a daily basis just for being who we are.
So for the rest of this article, I will use examples from both segments mentioned above, and information surrounding those segments, and apply it to each of the issues Media Watch claims to expose in order to demonstrate that Media Watch failed the transgender community, the Australian public, and themselves by ignoring their own standards they set for others when they chose to get involved in transphobic reporting. This article will not address EVERY single issue with those segments. For that, I recommend an excellent, in-depth thread written and researched by Isabelle Moreton.
Kicking off the list is conflicts of interest. For anyone unaware of what a conflict of interest is, it’s when a situation occurs where an entity or individual becomes unreliable due to a clash between their personal interests and professional responsibilities.
After episode 35 went to air, anti-trans hate groups rejoiced on social media with a post in one group by Kat Karena (Founder, LGB Defence, an anti-trans, anti-ACON hate group), stating that “it was the senior producer of ABC Media Watch that drove this [episode]” after she went to the Pride & Prejudice debate at UniMelb (discussed in ep 35) and “came away very concerned.”
At no point in the segment was there a declaration that the senior producer attended the event which led to the episode. Conveniently, an opinion piece from former ABC radio host Jon Faine about “noisy trans activists trying to shut down a forum [he] was chairing” became the smokescreen. If the senior producer possesses anti-trans or gender critical views which leads to the direction of editorial content lacking in impartiality and firmly on the side of the gender criticals, then it would be easy to consider such content as a conflict of interest.
Turning our attention to journalistic deceit and we can argue that by not seeking out transgender people to provide comment for either segment, Media Watch created a lack of impartiality in their reporting, deceiving viewers into believing the perception that “trans = bad” without allowing the trans community to defend ourselves.
In episode 27, Media Watch featured Keira Bell, a detransitioned woman notable for her case against Tavistock in which her initial win led to the prohibition of puberty blockers to treat trans youth for almost a whole year until the decision was appealed and rightfully overturned.
A quote from the Weekend Australian was used to support their argument, stating: “Australian gender clinics are under fresh scrutiny and face calls for an independent review of their prescription of puberty blockers to teenagers after a leading British clinic was closed down over safety concerns.”
What Media Watch, and the Weekend Australian, failed to mention was that the safety concerns are for trans youth stuck in unnecessarily long waiting lists of more than a year (more on that later).
Then Media Watch concludes with a quote from Senator Claire Chandler, known for her stance on removing trans women from sport. She was interviewed on Sky News and makes the assertion that because the Tavistock Clinic was not “fit for purpose” (correct, but not in the way she intends), questions should be raised about trans healthcare in Australia.
At no point in that segment did Media Watch provide balance with statistics that on average, 97% of people who are transgender are happy with the decision to transition, and around 3% of trans people experience some form of regret but may not detransition. For those who do, the major causes are external pressures such as their parents (36%), difficulty transitioning (33%), discrimination (31%), and employment (29%). Only 5% of people who detransitioned did so because they felt it wasn’t right for them.
Stories about detransitioners are important and need to be heard, but they should not be used as a weapon to harm the 97% of trans people who are happy with their transition. Media Watch could have added balance by seeking comment from trans people who take joy in transitioning, instead they made a one-sided hit piece.
Easily the most shocking aspect of both segments is the manipulation toward the ABC as a corporation and their news content.
At the end of episode 27, host Paul Barry labelled the ABC as “being in danger of becoming one-sided” for not reporting on the closure of the Tavistock Clinic in the UK, demanding that if the ABC doesn’t deem the news as relevant, it should “run an article explaining why that is so.” What wasn’t mentioned in the segment was that Tavistock Clinic will be closing in 2023 because it can not keep up with growing demand in treating trans patients and that the regional centres will help provide better care with shorter wait times. The whole premise of the ABC reporting on the closure of one medical clinic located in another country which has different treatment pathways to Australia is absurd. But sure enough on August 21, 2022 - six days after the segment aired - Media Watch had their demands met as ABC News published a story about healthcare for trans youth in Queensland with a small section dedicated to, you guessed it, the closure of Tavistock Clinic.
The segment from episode 35 ended with Paul Barry questioning the ABC’s membership in ACON’s Pride in Diversity program and whether it should be put under review. This is after false accusations of ACON being a lobby group. It’s worth remembering that the senior producer of Media Watch was in contact with Kat Karena, founder of LGB Defence, an anti-trans hate group lobbying against ACON. Membership into the Pride in Diversity program is to assist with improving workplace inclusion and helping LGBTQ+ employees and their allies feel safe and welcome. It doesn’t exist for the purposes of influencing journalistic content. Media Watch has no business telling the ABC what it should do as an employer and has overstepped its boundaries of media analysis and critique by doing so.
Responding to misrepresentation, I will use the start of episode 35. It began with Jon Faine’s comment of “8 or 9 noisy trans activists, trying to shut down a forum I was chairing” and him “just wanting to have a discussion.” A common tactic from gender criticals on social media is to claim they are “just asking questions,” or “just having a discussion” when they are actually trying to get us trans people to defend our existence. They don’t care about the answer, they only want to harass.
Media Watch continues by mentioning that the original moderator, Paul Barclay, stepped down after being ‘slammed’ on Twitter. While I have seen the tweet Paul posted about looking forward to the event, I have not been able to find anything relating to the reason why he stepped down. For all we know, it could be because he has decent morals and listened to the trans people who were posting safety concerns about some of the panel members being known for their anti-trans views. There were 17 replies to his tweet with one person posting, “looking at this event's participants there is no 'balanced' discussion to be had” and another asking if Paul would, “ask Kathleen Stock (listed as a panelist) about her signing a declaration calling for the Total Worldwide elimination of trans women and adolescents?” Some of the responses were in support of his attendance. One person commented, “I am very much looking forward to attending.” Another posted, “This is such an important discussion to have.” Hardly what I would call ‘slammed’, eh Media Watch?
But that didn’t stop them from cherry-picking some of the responses to Paul Barclay’s tweet from trans people (and allies) and adding voice overs, as they often do, but in a tone which suggests hostility or, as Jon Faine described, ‘noisy’. Contrasting this editorial decision with the lack of trans balance in ep 27, it is very clear that Media Watch has a firm agenda against the trans community and will do whatever it can to portray us as a public enemy.
Finishing off the list is plagiarism. I’ll admit, this one is difficult because the segments are short and Media Watch often references other media to build their narrative. But if we were to take what they are trying to do - the idea of using transphobia on a media platform to attack a national public broadcaster - we can say that unless they start attributing Stephen Nolan with every opinion they have on trans people, we have got ourselves some plagiarism right there folks!
Steve’s podcast “Nolan Investigates: Stonewall” was referenced multiple times in episode 35, alleging bias from the BBC’s membership to Stonewall’s workplace equality index, and formed the basis for why Media Watch believes the ABC should review their membership to ACON’s Pride in Diversity.
None of what Media Watch has presented in their two segments changes the fact that the Australian trans community have already seen this play out against our UK siblings with the BBC and most of the tabloids reporting transphobic pieces. This is nothing new. This is simply a re-run of a spin-off. Controversy for clicks. Fascism for followers. Hatred for humanity.
Supporting transphobia like Media Watch has in these two segments demonstrates that hatred is blind. As mentioned in examples above, there was no impartiality surrounding the issues being discussed, only a strong dislike for trans people. Media Watch acted very much out of character in the interest of a senior producer with an agenda.
It owes the Australian transgender community a public apology for the unprovoked harm caused. It owes the Australian public an apology for using its platform to voice hatred of a marginalised community instead of reporting on journalists and media personalities doing the wrong thing. It owes the ABC an apology for going against its own Editorial Policy.
After all that has happened, it should be worth asking: is Media Watch still fit for purpose?
