Dr Tess Howes, President of ABC Friends NSW & ACT, explores strategies for respectfully engaging with accusations of ABC bias by encouraging curiosity over certainty, reframing oversimplified political divisions, and modelling democratic dialogue that honours the national broadcaster’s role in serving Australia’s diverse democracy.

Claims of ABC bias frequently echo across the media landscape. Various ABC Friends recall hearing this from the 1960s, intensifying during the Fraser Government’s politically charged confrontations with the national broadcaster—tensions that helped galvanise the formation of the Friends of the ABC groups across the country in 1976.

However an accusation of bias is not always objective. What counts as ‘bias’’ frequently differs depending on the individual perspective: interview fairness, panel-selection, topic coverage, framing, language, or story selection etc.

This pattern was demonstrated recently during an analysis of complaints received in response to the ABC Friends e-news: 82% of the complainants – less than 0.03% of recipients – claimed the ABC was biased. Yet of those, 49% said ‘biased to the right’ and 27% ‘biased to the left.’ When the same content is accused of opposing biases, something  very complex is at play. Contested counter claims of bias at the ABC therefore are unlikely to be comprehensively resolved.

Drawing on both academic understanding and coaching practice, three key strategies can help us respectfully discuss fixed views about ABC bias—while learning how to argue respectfully, persuasively. Capabilities that will help us strengthen connections across the ideological divide and communicate persuasively to facilitate renewed interest in the ABC as a national asset and vital democratic institution.

Encourage a growth mindset (Dweck, 2017)

Most claims of bias come from a fixed mindset—a psychological stance where people seek certainty, confirmation, to protect and reinforce their own, individual perspective. Confronting a fixed mindset with blunt facts or critique is unlikely to facilitate a shift in understanding. Movement is more likely to result from modelling curiosity.

Open-ended questions in the Socratic tradition help to lower emotional heat and may prompt a mindset shift to one that tolerates ambiguity, complexity, and nuance. When people feel heard, they are more likely to listen. Curiosity is key: persuasion begins by making meaningful connections.

Reframe the left–right divide oversimplification

One of the most effective coaching strategies is to help people recognise the limitations of binary thinking. The left–right continuum makes it easy to denigrate alternate points of view; however, it is a false dichotomy.

Most of us are ideologically multi-dimensional: progressive on some issues, conservative on others; libertarian in one domain and communitarian in another. If we are for example socially progressive but economically conservative – where does the binary right-left divide position us?

Somewhere towards the middle of the ideological continuum depending on the specific issue. While political identities are often portrayed as polarised, large-scale surveys consistently show a broad middle ground in Australia, with many people holding moderate or mixed positions. When we acknowledge this complexity, we are more likely to appreciate that no single ABC broadcast, interviewer, news coverage or Australian story will be able to reflect the full range of individual ideological positions among Australian audiences.

The ABC’s mandate is not to reflect one ideological map, but to serve all Australians—across differences of geography, class, identity, belief, and affiliation. A national broadcaster in a pluralistic democracy cannot be everything to everyone all the time. But it can—and does—strive for honesty, transparency, and diversity of perspective.

Reframing the debate away from ‘left vs right’ can help people reassess what they mean by bias and recognise the ABC’s role is to be a platform for complex national conversations, not ideological mirroring.

Model respectful disagreement as a democratic communication skill

Disagreeing respectfully is not a weakness — it takes skill, commitment and courage. It involves learning to listen better and disagree well. If we disagree badly then argument is a waste of time (Seo, 2022). Coaching research shows that people are more likely to consider different views not when they are under attack or even worse, ridiculed, but when they feel safe enough to reflect, reconsider and respond.

Disagreeing respectfully can strengthen our national dialogue. If we engage in calm, evidence-grounded, respectful conversations, we may be able to counter the cynicism and mistrust that fuel accusations of bias in the first place.

Leading the change we need 

The ABC remains one of Australia’s most trusted news brands —precisely because it strives to serve a country far more complex than a binary left–right divide suggests. But trust must be continually nurtured.

If we, as ABC Friends and supporters, are willing to engage others with curiosity, honesty, and respect, we can help shift public debate from personal ideological accusations to a more comprehensive understanding. In doing so, we honour not only the ABC but the democratic culture it has been established to sustain.