Michael Rowland is leaving the ABC after 39 years, and his departure is about more than one presenter's career choice. It's a symptom of broader pressures facing Australia's national broadcaster - budget cuts, political scrutiny, and questions about its future direction.
Rowland has been a fixture on ABC News Breakfast for years, one of those faces Australians see every morning before work. He's also covered major international events, hosted radio programs, and become synonymous with the ABC's brand of public-service journalism. The fact that he's walking away now says something about the institution's current state.
The ABC has faced relentless pressure under successive governments. Budget cuts have reduced staff, shuttered regional bureaus, and forced the broadcaster to do more with less. Political attacks - mostly from the Coalition but occasionally from Labor - have questioned its editorial independence, accused it of bias, and demanded "balance" in ways that don't apply to commercial media.
Rowland's exit follows other high-profile departures in recent years. Leigh Sales, Emma Alberici, Tony Jones - all household names, all gone. Some left for commercial opportunities, others for different challenges, but the cumulative effect is a brain drain from an institution that depends on talent and trust.
Mate, the ABC matters. It's not just another media outlet. It's the primary news source for regional Australia, the main broadcaster to the Pacific Islands, and the closest thing the country has to a national conversation space. When it struggles, the whole information ecosystem suffers.
The Pacific dimension is often overlooked. ABC Radio Australia and ABC Australia television reach across the region, from Papua New Guinea to Fiji to Vanuatu and the smaller island nations. In areas where commercial media doesn't bother operating, the ABC is the link to Australian news, sport, and culture. It's also soft power - when Pacific Islanders consume Australian content, it builds connection and influence.
At a time when China is expanding its media footprint across the Pacific - funding local media, providing content, building infrastructure - Australia's commitment to public broadcasting in the region is a strategic asset. Cutting ABC funding while Beijing invests heavily in regional media is shortsighted.
Back to Rowland. His departure will be announced officially by the ABC, with the usual statements about gratitude for service and best wishes for future endeavors. Behind the PR language is a reality: the ABC is losing experienced journalists at a rate that should concern anyone who cares about media quality.
Public broadcasting requires consistent funding, editorial independence, and political support across party lines. Australia has struggled with all three. The ABC's budget has been cut repeatedly, its independence questioned constantly, and its role in democracy treated as a political football rather than a shared national asset.
The commercial media landscape isn't picking up the slack. News Corp dominates print, but its coverage is politically slanted and increasingly tabloid. Nine, Seven, and Ten provide television news, but they're driven by ratings and advertising revenue, not public service. Digital outlets like Guardian Australia and Crikey do valuable work, but they don't have the reach or resources of the ABC.
Regional coverage is particularly weak. Commercial media has abandoned most regional areas because they're not profitable. The ABC is often the only professional news source in country towns, covering local councils, courts, and community issues that would otherwise go unreported. When the ABC's budget is cut, regional Australia loses coverage first.
The talent retention problem is real. Journalists stay at the ABC for public-service mission and editorial quality, not for pay - commercial outlets pay better. But if budget cuts mean fewer opportunities, worse conditions, and constant political attacks on the organization's legitimacy, even mission-driven journalists eventually leave.
Rowland hasn't publicly stated his reasons for leaving beyond wanting new challenges. That's diplomatic, and probably partly true. But context matters. The ABC is under pressure, morale is reportedly low, and experienced presenters can see the writing on the wall.
The question is whether Australia values public broadcasting enough to properly fund it. Other developed democracies - Britain, Canada, Germany, Japan - maintain strong public broadcasters with consistent funding and cross-party support. They recognize that a healthy democracy requires media institutions that aren't purely driven by profit.
Australia has the ABC, and it's worth preserving. But preservation requires resources, independence, and a political culture that treats public broadcasting as infrastructure rather than a target. Rowland's departure is one data point. The broader trend is concerning. And if Australia doesn't reverse course, the country will wake up one day to find its public broadcaster hollowed out, its Pacific influence diminished, and its media landscape poorer for it.
