The indelible legacy of Peter Manning, a titan of Australian investigative journalism, has cast a sharp spotlight on the current state of Four Corners, the ABC’s flagship current affairs program. His passing has prompted former colleagues and industry observers to reflect on the show’s evolution, with many asking if the era of audacious, groundbreaking journalism that defined Manning’s tenure has given way to a more cautious approach.
The Manning Legacy and a Shifting Landscape
Peter Manning, who died recently, was synonymous with a period when Four Corners was lauded for its fearless investigations, often challenging powerful institutions and individuals without apparent fear or favour. His impact was such that his memory has become a touchstone for a discussion about the program's journey. Crikey, the independent news outlet, recently delved into this introspection, speaking with insiders who expressed concerns that the program's appetite for risk may have diminished over the years.
During Manning’s time, Four Corners was renowned for its willingness to confront major political and corporate figures, often venturing into controversial territory that other media shied away from. This approach cemented its reputation as a vital pillar of Australian democracy, holding power to account. The question now being posed is whether the contemporary Four Corners still possesses that same unwavering commitment to confrontational, high-stakes reporting.
Mounting Pressures on Public Broadcasting
Several factors are often cited for the perceived shift in Four Corners' methodology. Foremost among these are the escalating financial pressures faced by the ABC. Budget cuts and increased scrutiny from political spheres have undoubtedly influenced editorial decisions across the public broadcaster. Investigative journalism, by its very nature, is resource-intensive, requiring significant time, travel, legal support, and often incurring substantial costs.
Furthermore, the legal landscape for defamation and media liability has grown increasingly complex and punitive in Australia. Broadcasters, including the ABC, face significant financial risks if a story is challenged successfully in court. This heightened legal exposure can understandably lead to a more conservative editorial stance, particularly on stories that involve powerful entities with deep pockets for litigation.
From Risk-Takers to Risk-Averse?
Crikey’s report highlighted a sentiment among former Four Corners staff that the program, once a crucible for unearthing explosive truths, now appears to operate with a greater degree of caution. One insider, quoted by Crikey, lamented, “I don’t know that we take those risks anymore,” encapsulating the concern that the bold, pioneering spirit of journalists like Manning might be harder to find in current productions.
The implications of this shift extend beyond the program itself. A less audacious Four Corners could mean that fewer significant stories are broken, and less accountability is demanded of those in authority. For a broadsheet like the Sydney Daily News, which relies on and often follows up on the investigative work of others, a reduced appetite for risk at the ABC could have broader ramifications for the Australian media landscape as a whole.
The Future of Deep Dive Journalism
The discussion surrounding Four Corners is not merely nostalgic; it’s a critical examination of the future of deep-dive investigative journalism in Australia. In an era of shrinking newsrooms and an increasingly fragmented media environment, the role of a well-resourced, fearless public broadcaster remains paramount. The challenge for Four Corners, and indeed for the ABC, is to navigate these contemporary pressures while honouring the legacy of journalists like Peter Manning, ensuring that the program continues to serve its vital public interest function with integrity and courage. The Australian public deserves a Four Corners that is not only relevant but also relentlessly bold in its pursuit of truth.
