For most people, quitting a job is usually a private affair concerning only employee and employer. For Tony Armstrong, however, most of Australia appears to have had a front-row seat to his latest career move, and there’s been plenty to see – but not all of it pleasant.
A week after the popular presenter announced he would be leaving ABC News Breakfast, a Media Watch investigation revealed that Armstrong provided voice-overs for nationwide NRMA Insurance ads. Contrary to ABC’s strict guidelines for staff engaging in external work, Media Watch confirmed that Armstrong hadn’t sought prior approval from the bosses before doing the ads.
A day later, the findings of an ABC-commissioned review into racism revealed that 119 out of 120 current and former staff said they personally experienced racism while working at the broadcaster. Around the same time, Armstrong took to Instagram stories to share screenshots of racist and derogatory messages he’d received from online trolls.
Not surprisingly, this generated a flurry of comments and media interest, with everyone from The Guardian to the Daily Mail covering it. ABC’s Director of News, Justin Stevens, was quick to condemn the racist attacks and reaffirm the broadcaster’s unequivocal support of Armstrong.
Numerous outlets framed Media Watch’s investigation as a targeted ABC attack on one of their own, or otherwise implied that the racist abuse levelled at Armstrong was a direct consequence of the episode. For example, one called it a 'hit piece', and another blamed it for 'unleash[ing] a torrent of online abuse' at Armstrong. Stevens wasn’t as forthcoming in his statement but appears to be suggesting the same thing: ‘[t]he ABC belongs to the public and is rightly subject to appropriate scrutiny and feedback. However, at times the nature of the scrutiny on particular ABC employees is unsettling, and the incessant coverage targeting them has real impacts.’
Stevens is correct that the ABC must be scrutinised, and this isn’t the first time Media Watch has taken aim at one of their own. The programme criticised the ABC and Mark Willacy for their reports on war crimes; and on multiple occasions has questioned the ABC’s impartiality, including for their relationship with ACON and more recently journalist Jamelle Wells in a story about brumby culls.
So, the issue here doesn’t seem to be about whether Media Watch has the right to scrutinise the ABC, but whether they should in certain situations. Even in high-profile cases like this, it is important to remember the distinction between upholding ABC’s principles of impartiality and avoiding commercial influence, which Media Watch routinely covers, and the targeting of individuals. While the racist attacks on Armstrong or any other ABC staff should of course be denounced, surely they are irrelevant in determining whether these principles have been breached.
Tamara Markus, CMT Research Assistant