I think it’s fair to admit that journalism is not the most introspective of professions. We freely hurl stones at others but rarely bother squizzing our own glassy surrounds. Newsrooms, famed for scathing investigations into the workplace cultures of our major institutions, don’t often turn the spotlight onto themselves. Prior to this year, I can’t remember the last time a major media organisation commissioned a review into its own workplace culture, which makes not one but four such reviews in the past few months, let’s say… noteworthy.
In April, Seven West Media’s new CEO, Jeff Howard, reportedly commissioned consulting firm Interchange to conduct a review of the organisation amid outrageous allegations of improper conduct, including company funds being spent on cocaine and sex workers for rapist Bruce Lehrmann. Staff were interviewed and a report was submitted to the board but thus far the company has kept shtum on the findings, which is why you’ve probably not heard about it.
Interchange’s website promises to take “a human-centred design approach to work collaboratively with our clients … [and] create the perfect landscape for culture transformation to ensue, by combining our strategic prowess with unbridled, inventive talent”. Unfortunately, I don’t know what any of that means. I’ve also watched Interchange’s promotional video and the snippets of human adults in corporate wear playing scissors, paper, rock have left me none the wiser on exactly how they propose to improve Seven’s culture.
Then it was the ABC’s turn to release findings from not one but two reviews. In June, it published the results of an internal survey, which showed a quarter of news division employees experienced bullying at work and 13% had experienced sexual harassment. It followed this up in October with the broader Listen Loudly, Act Strongly report conducted by lawyer Terri Janke, which was commissioned last year after the acrimonious public departure of presenter Stan Grant. The report found ABC staff were subject to racism both within the organisation and from external organisations in connection with their work.
Unlike Seven keeping things on the DL, outgoing managing director David Anderson addressed the ABC report in a televised interview with presenter Miriam Corowa who invited him to “take the opportunity to step into this new space”. After a protracted introduction and two acknowledgments of country, he lamented, ”If people believe that it’s OK to behave like this, this is not the place for them. We will find them and we will make sure they leave the ABC.” Not sure who these ambiguous bandits wilfully perpetuating racism at the public broadcaster and thinking it a-okay are, but godspeed in snuffing them out.
The latest review has come from Nine, with the company last week releasing the findings of an independent investigation it had commissioned following complaints of inappropriate behaviour against former TV news boss, Darren Wick. The review, conducted by consultancy firm Intersection (not to be confused with Seven’s consultancy firm, Interchange) found Nine employees were undermined, harassed, bullied, shamed and belittled, and in some instances leaders had tried to “cover up” inappropriate workplace behaviours.
Yikes! Enter the restorative powers of the external workplace review, an effective tool for a bold, controlled, tactical reset, particularly in the wake of public scandal. I can see why bosses might appreciate them — but what about staff?
As Crikey and others noted, staff at Nine are sceptical things will change given no one has been held to account. Nine says several investigations are underway into individuals accused of inappropriate behaviour but an outcome will take time.
Several ABC staff have told me they too have reservations the ABC will protect its diverse staff in a uniform way. A few mentioned what they saw as the failure of the ABC to support Lebanese-Australian presenter, Antoinette Lattouf, and journalist Anushri Sood when they came under attack from the pro-Israel lobby and Peter Dutton respectively. The ABC distanced itself from Sood the same day the racism report came out.
So, if they fail to fully address and allay the concerns of staff what is the point of such reviews? Surely they just become a public relations exercise that, at worst, extracts and exploits the trauma of employees to curry favour with outside stakeholders and, at best, brings incremental change while allowing bosses to draw a line under a problem? This could end up worse for staff morale than not commissioning a review in the first place.
Now to be clear, I don’t think that’s what’s happening, but the mark of whether a review means anything is not if viewers, shareholders, taxpayers, politicians, advertisers or some combination thereof are pleased, but staff, because that’s who it’s ultimately for. Surely, the Interwhatsits have a human-centred design approach for that.
