ABC reveals Laura Tingle's 7.30 replacement
ABC political correspondent Jacob Greber has been named as Laura Tingle's replacement on the national broadcaster's flagship current affairs program, 7.30.
Greber takes on the highly scrutinised position of political editor, having joined the ABC less than a year ago from The Australian Financial Review.
He is currently chief digital political correspondent at the ABC's Parliament House bureau.
Greber's appointment was announced by 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson on Thursday night.
Greber has had almost 30 years of experience as a journalist, including an eight-year stint at Bloomberg and 12 years working at the AFR, where he was a US correspondent and later a senior correspondent.
Tingle has been appointed the ABC's global affairs editor, bringing an end her to seven years on the program.
The global affairs editor leads the ABC's international coverage, with reporting and analysis of major world events. The role was created in 2022 for John Lyons, who is now Americas editor, based in Washington.
Other prominent ABC figures tipped as potential candidates included bureau chief David Lipson, national affairs editor and Radio National Breakfast correspondent Melissa Clarke, and Insiders host David Speers. Patricia Karvelas and ABC Melbourne radio host Raf Epstein were also flagged as possible replacements, but ruled themselves out when contacted by this masthead in May.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Woodside given more time to consider gas plant rules
A final call on Woodside's massive gas project has been delayed with the energy giant granted more time to consider federal conditions on cultural heritage and air quality. Woodside had 10 days to respond to Environment Minister Murray Watt's provisional approval to push out the life of its North West Shelf project in Western Australia but an unspecified extension has since been granted. Under the proposal, the project - which hosts Australia's biggest gas export plant - will be able to keep operating until 2070. The tentative approval has angered Indigenous groups fearful it will damage nearby ancient rock art, as well as environmentalists concerned it will hasten climate change. Protesters took the campaign to the offices of five federal Labor MPs in Perth on Friday where they handed over an open letter opposing the project signed by more than 60 scientists and experts. The North West Shelf's go-ahead is subject to strict conditions about the impact of air emission levels, provisions the environment minister says will ensure the 60,000-year-old Murujuga Indigenous rock art is not destroyed. Senator Watt said discussions with Woodside had been constructive and it was not uncommon for proponents in this situation to take a bit longer to respond. "I can't predict exactly when it will be that Woodside will provide those comments," he told ABC radio on Thursday. The energy giant confirmed the extended consultation period on Friday. "Woodside recognises the importance of the matters being addressed by the proposed conditions of the environmental approval including cultural heritage management and air quality," the company said in a statement. Australian Conservation Foundation climate campaigner Piper Rollins said the public had a right to see the conditions proposed by the minister. "Australians who are worried about the protection of the ancient Murujuga rock art, which has been nominated for World Heritage listing and is right next door to Woodside's gas hub, deserve to see what Woodside is being allowed to negotiate behind closed doors," Ms Rollins said. "In addition to the damage to the rock art, extending the NW Shelf gas hub until 2070 locks in decades more climate pollution and will drive demand to open new gas fields." A final call on Woodside's massive gas project has been delayed with the energy giant granted more time to consider federal conditions on cultural heritage and air quality. Woodside had 10 days to respond to Environment Minister Murray Watt's provisional approval to push out the life of its North West Shelf project in Western Australia but an unspecified extension has since been granted. Under the proposal, the project - which hosts Australia's biggest gas export plant - will be able to keep operating until 2070. The tentative approval has angered Indigenous groups fearful it will damage nearby ancient rock art, as well as environmentalists concerned it will hasten climate change. Protesters took the campaign to the offices of five federal Labor MPs in Perth on Friday where they handed over an open letter opposing the project signed by more than 60 scientists and experts. The North West Shelf's go-ahead is subject to strict conditions about the impact of air emission levels, provisions the environment minister says will ensure the 60,000-year-old Murujuga Indigenous rock art is not destroyed. Senator Watt said discussions with Woodside had been constructive and it was not uncommon for proponents in this situation to take a bit longer to respond. "I can't predict exactly when it will be that Woodside will provide those comments," he told ABC radio on Thursday. The energy giant confirmed the extended consultation period on Friday. "Woodside recognises the importance of the matters being addressed by the proposed conditions of the environmental approval including cultural heritage management and air quality," the company said in a statement. Australian Conservation Foundation climate campaigner Piper Rollins said the public had a right to see the conditions proposed by the minister. "Australians who are worried about the protection of the ancient Murujuga rock art, which has been nominated for World Heritage listing and is right next door to Woodside's gas hub, deserve to see what Woodside is being allowed to negotiate behind closed doors," Ms Rollins said. "In addition to the damage to the rock art, extending the NW Shelf gas hub until 2070 locks in decades more climate pollution and will drive demand to open new gas fields." A final call on Woodside's massive gas project has been delayed with the energy giant granted more time to consider federal conditions on cultural heritage and air quality. Woodside had 10 days to respond to Environment Minister Murray Watt's provisional approval to push out the life of its North West Shelf project in Western Australia but an unspecified extension has since been granted. Under the proposal, the project - which hosts Australia's biggest gas export plant - will be able to keep operating until 2070. The tentative approval has angered Indigenous groups fearful it will damage nearby ancient rock art, as well as environmentalists concerned it will hasten climate change. Protesters took the campaign to the offices of five federal Labor MPs in Perth on Friday where they handed over an open letter opposing the project signed by more than 60 scientists and experts. The North West Shelf's go-ahead is subject to strict conditions about the impact of air emission levels, provisions the environment minister says will ensure the 60,000-year-old Murujuga Indigenous rock art is not destroyed. Senator Watt said discussions with Woodside had been constructive and it was not uncommon for proponents in this situation to take a bit longer to respond. "I can't predict exactly when it will be that Woodside will provide those comments," he told ABC radio on Thursday. The energy giant confirmed the extended consultation period on Friday. "Woodside recognises the importance of the matters being addressed by the proposed conditions of the environmental approval including cultural heritage management and air quality," the company said in a statement. Australian Conservation Foundation climate campaigner Piper Rollins said the public had a right to see the conditions proposed by the minister. "Australians who are worried about the protection of the ancient Murujuga rock art, which has been nominated for World Heritage listing and is right next door to Woodside's gas hub, deserve to see what Woodside is being allowed to negotiate behind closed doors," Ms Rollins said. "In addition to the damage to the rock art, extending the NW Shelf gas hub until 2070 locks in decades more climate pollution and will drive demand to open new gas fields." A final call on Woodside's massive gas project has been delayed with the energy giant granted more time to consider federal conditions on cultural heritage and air quality. Woodside had 10 days to respond to Environment Minister Murray Watt's provisional approval to push out the life of its North West Shelf project in Western Australia but an unspecified extension has since been granted. Under the proposal, the project - which hosts Australia's biggest gas export plant - will be able to keep operating until 2070. The tentative approval has angered Indigenous groups fearful it will damage nearby ancient rock art, as well as environmentalists concerned it will hasten climate change. Protesters took the campaign to the offices of five federal Labor MPs in Perth on Friday where they handed over an open letter opposing the project signed by more than 60 scientists and experts. The North West Shelf's go-ahead is subject to strict conditions about the impact of air emission levels, provisions the environment minister says will ensure the 60,000-year-old Murujuga Indigenous rock art is not destroyed. Senator Watt said discussions with Woodside had been constructive and it was not uncommon for proponents in this situation to take a bit longer to respond. "I can't predict exactly when it will be that Woodside will provide those comments," he told ABC radio on Thursday. The energy giant confirmed the extended consultation period on Friday. "Woodside recognises the importance of the matters being addressed by the proposed conditions of the environmental approval including cultural heritage management and air quality," the company said in a statement. Australian Conservation Foundation climate campaigner Piper Rollins said the public had a right to see the conditions proposed by the minister. "Australians who are worried about the protection of the ancient Murujuga rock art, which has been nominated for World Heritage listing and is right next door to Woodside's gas hub, deserve to see what Woodside is being allowed to negotiate behind closed doors," Ms Rollins said. "In addition to the damage to the rock art, extending the NW Shelf gas hub until 2070 locks in decades more climate pollution and will drive demand to open new gas fields."
Perth Now
5 hours ago
- Perth Now
Woodside given more time to consider gas plant rules
A final call on Woodside's massive gas project has been delayed with the energy giant granted more time to consider federal conditions on cultural heritage and air quality. Woodside had 10 days to respond to Environment Minister Murray Watt's provisional approval to push out the life of its North West Shelf project in Western Australia but an unspecified extension has since been granted. Under the proposal, the project - which hosts Australia's biggest gas export plant - will be able to keep operating until 2070. The tentative approval has angered Indigenous groups fearful it will damage nearby ancient rock art, as well as environmentalists concerned it will hasten climate change. Protesters took the campaign to the offices of five federal Labor MPs in Perth on Friday where they handed over an open letter opposing the project signed by more than 60 scientists and experts. The North West Shelf's go-ahead is subject to strict conditions about the impact of air emission levels, provisions the environment minister says will ensure the 60,000-year-old Murujuga Indigenous rock art is not destroyed. Senator Watt said discussions with Woodside had been constructive and it was not uncommon for proponents in this situation to take a bit longer to respond. "I can't predict exactly when it will be that Woodside will provide those comments," he told ABC radio on Thursday. The energy giant confirmed the extended consultation period on Friday. "Woodside recognises the importance of the matters being addressed by the proposed conditions of the environmental approval including cultural heritage management and air quality," the company said in a statement. Australian Conservation Foundation climate campaigner Piper Rollins said the public had a right to see the conditions proposed by the minister. "Australians who are worried about the protection of the ancient Murujuga rock art, which has been nominated for World Heritage listing and is right next door to Woodside's gas hub, deserve to see what Woodside is being allowed to negotiate behind closed doors," Ms Rollins said. "In addition to the damage to the rock art, extending the NW Shelf gas hub until 2070 locks in decades more climate pollution and will drive demand to open new gas fields."
The Advertiser
11 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Yes, audiences have changed. But this is destroying a core tenet of news
This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking.
