The ABC versus News Corp and Abbott: This farce is about politics, not terrorism
This week’s scandal over Q&A’s decision to allow a former radical on air is being fuelled by cynical self-interest on the part of the Government and News Corp, argues Mumbrella’s Tim Burrowes.
So I’m an idiot.
On Tuesday, when the ABC admitted it had blundered over the previous night’s Q&A episode, I told all and sundry: “That was smart. Now it’ll be a one-day story and everybody will move on.”
That’s not quite how it turned out.
If you thought newspapers no longer have influence, just wait until News Corp’s tabloids go properly nuts about something.
I should have seen it coming. Karl Marx was right when he said that history repeats itself – first as tragedy, then as farce.
Editorial decisions about sensitive Middle East issues by public broadcasters. Angry governments. A live broadcast. News Corp-driven tabloid outrage. Public inquiries. It all happened a decade ago.
The only difference was that last time round, it happened in the UK, and there was real tragedy – somebody died. And the boss of the BBC lost his job.
This time round, at least it’s only a farce. Even if the politicians and tabloids once again want heads to roll.
I was amused (and given the ISIS context, a little horrified) that Prime Minister Tony Abbott used the phrase “heads should roll” yesterday. There’s long been a saying about Britain’s public broadcaster the BBC when a controversy occurs: “Deputy heads will roll”.
And it’s a lesson the ABC has followed over the years too. Almost exactly five years ago, Amanda Duthie was the deputy head in question when The Chaser’s controversial dying kids Make A Reasonable Wish Foundation drove the tabloids nuts.
But it was nothing compared to one of the most shameful episodes in the recent history of British democracy.
It kicked off just over a decade ago in May 2003 on BBC Radio 4’s Today Show. Think RN Breakfast, but even more influential.
Journalist Andrew Gilligan reported that Tony Blair’s Government had knowingly “sexed up” the case for going to war with Iraq, including its abilities to use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. The report of a misleading dossier was accurate, but in one of the live two-ways between the journalist and presenter, he went too far in his claims.
Things became febrile when Government and newspapers, including the News Corp stable, went to war on the BBC. Five weeks later, the source of the BBC story, David Kelly, was outed after the Government confirmed his name to journalists. A week later, Kelly turned up dead in a field.
The government announced an inquiry. It was a wonderful distraction from the fingers pointing at them over the man’s death.
The Hutton Inquiry process ran for five months, examining the inner workings of the BBC and government communications.
The result was a whitewash on behalf of the Government. Nobody could have anticipated Dr Kelly would take his life, the inquiry ruled. If the dossier making the case for war had been tampered with, it was only because the government had “subconsciously influenced” staffers.
Instead, the blame lay with the BBC chain of command in how the story was researched and presented.
Greg Dyke, one of the best director generals the BBC had ever had, resigned. None of his successors were a match for him. One of them, George Entwistle, lasted just 54 days. The BBC hasn’t been quite the same since.
It was a victory for the Blair Government, and for News Corp, which arguably dislikes the BBC even more than it hates the ABC.
But back to this week’s events.
First, let’s nail down what didn’t happen.
Despite what you may have read, Zaky Mallah did not go on air and advocate for Muslims to go and join ISIL. (Embarrassing declaration: For a few minutes on Tuesday morning, that’s how we reported it too.) In fact, he claimed that the rhetoric used by politicians might encourage that.
And let’s nail down what the ABC hasn’t apologised for.
The broadcaster has not conceded what went to air was out of order.
It has admitted that editorial processes in taking the risk of putting a loose cannon on the air went awry.
As Mark Scott put it in his excellent speech last night:
“The risks and uncertainties of having him in a live programming environment weren’t adequately considered before the decision was made to accept his application to be in the studio audience.
“It’s one thing to pre-record an interview and exercise editorial judgment on the content before you put it to air. But live television doesn’t give you that option. And in Q&A’s case, it took place with a large studio audience present.
“These things needed to have been thought through carefully and referred up internally. We have detailed upward referral on editorial judgment at the ABC to help guide thinking in complex or contentious matters.”
But although it seems that (just like with the Make A Reasonable Wish Chaser sketch), it didn’t get referred upwards. But nothing went wrong.
Mallah did not call for Muslims to go and fight in Syria. And he certainly didn’t repeat the sentiments of his horrible tweets he’s previously made about News Corp columnists.
He took a slight crack at Ciobo. After Ciobo told Mallah he’d be pleased to send him out of the country, he retorted “I’d be happy to see you out of this country.”
It’s only one up from the playground “No. You smell”…)
Here’s the transcript (6.45pm update: This full, updated version sourced from the ABC Q&A website)
ZAKY MALLAH: As the first man in Australia to be charged with terrorism under the harsh Liberal Howard Government in 2003, I was subject to solitary confinement, a 22 hour lockdown, dressed in most times in an orange overall and treated like a convicted terrorist while under the presumption of innocence. I had done and said some stupid things, including threatening to kidnap and kill but, in 2005, I was acquitted of those terrorism charges. Question to the panel: What would have happened if my case had been decided by the Minister himself and not the courts?
TONY JONES: Steve Ciobo.
STEVE CIOBO: Sir, I’m not familiar with the circumstances of your case. I remember certainly seeing video of comments that the questioner asked but, from memory, I thought you were acquitted on a technicality rather than it being on the basis of a substantial finding of fact. I could be wrong but that’s my…
TONY JONES: Well, I mean, we’ll go back to – to Zaky. I mean, you did, in fact, plead guilty to making these threats you just mentioned – death threats to Commonwealth officials and you did – you were convicted of that so you are admitting to that but it’s the other side of the coin you were not convicted in the end on any terrorism charges. That’s correct?
ZAKY MALLAH: That’s correct. I was charged with planning a terrorist attack in Sydney in 2003 and was acquitted by the Supreme Court jury in 2005 of those charges. However, as a plea bargain happened, I pleaded guilty to threatening to kill ASIO officials.
TONY JONES: Okay.
STEVE CIOBO: Well, I got to tell you, Tony, my understanding of your case was that you were acquitted because, at that point in time, the laws weren’t retrospective. But I’m happy to look you straight in the eye and say that I would be pleased to be part of a government that would say that you’re out of the country as far as I’m concerned.
ZAKY MALLAH: Rubbish. Rubbish.
STEVE CIOBO: I’m telling you I would sleep very soundly at night with that point of view.
ZAKY MALLAH: As an Australian, I would be happy to see you out of this country.
TONY JONES: Okay, Joel Fitzgibbon.
STEVE CIOBO: The difference is – but hang on, Tony.
TONY JONES: Yeah, okay.
STEVE CIOBO: The difference is I haven’t threatened to kill anybody, I haven’t threatened to kill people that put their lives on the line for the values that this country represents.
DEE MADIGAN: But don’t you think…
STEVE CIOBO: And so in that sense, with the greatest of respect to you, my understanding – well, no, my understanding – I don’t apologise for this point of view. My understanding is that the reason you got off terrorist offences was because they weren’t retrospective in application and that’s the only reason.
DEE MADIGAN: But don’t you think we have courts to decide these things, not Ministers? That’s why we have courts?
STEVE CIOBO: Okay. So the difference here is that and this is – I mean, up until just when Joel spoke about Labor’s position my understanding…
DEE MADIGAN: I don’t agree with that position.
STEVE CIOBO: …was that Labor required a conviction. So, I mean, I’m pleased that Joel has overruled the Shadow Attorney General. But the position is this: do we allow people or do we require people to come back into Australia and pursue a criminal conviction or do we say, no, a Minister can do that based on intelligence advice, based on the advice of others, subject to, as I said, the rule of parliamentary democracy?
DEE MADIGAN: So what you’re saying though, is a Minister…
LINDA TIRADO: Always let your (indistinct) decisions.
DEE MADIGAN: …a Minister can get rid of someone’s citizenship and then they have to appeal to the courts to get it back?
STEVE CIOBO: Right.
DEE MADIGAN: I mean, they’re using the appeal process to prove their innocence.
STEVE CIOBO: Yes.
DEE MADIGAN: Do you not think that’s skewed on the head?
STEVE CIOBO: I think that’s a fundamental principle of putting safety first.
DEE MADIGAN: Okay, I’m just going to go to the other side of the panel here. First of all, I’d like to hear Joel Fitzgibbon on the question raised by Zaky Mallah. He has admitted and was convicted for the offence which he described but he was acquitted on the offence of terrorism. Now, Steve Ciobo here says, well, it’s because it wasn’t retrospective or the laws weren’t retrospective in those days. But he was found innocent in the Supreme Court of that particular offence. What do you say?
JOEL FITZGIBBON: And his main point, correct me if I am wrong, is that you were detained over a protracted period. That’s your main contention or complaint?
ZAKY MALLAH: Well, I was at Goulburn supermax for two years waiting for trial and then eventually the Supreme Court jury acquitted me of those charges.
JOEL FITZGIBBON: Yeah, so this is a…
TONY JONES: So we’ve just heard one side of politics say that for the offence committed, they believe, Steve Ciobo believes he should banished from the country. What do you say?
JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, I’m not familiar with the details of the case so I’ll be careful. But I think we’re talking about two different things here. We’re not – we’ve moved away from citizenship. The issue here is whether the Parliament has legislated to deal with a pretty serious threat that is terrorism in a way which starts to impinge on civil liberties. So what the Parliament has basically done is pushed the balance and determined that if there’s doubt, we are going to hold this person longer than we were ordinarily able to do in the past and the Parliament, or the government of the day – I’m not defending John Howard – but the Government of the day has decided that the threat was so great that it was necessary to impinge on those civil liberties. So they’re different questions. Now, we can debate all not about whether…
TONY JONES: Well, the question that he actually asked was whether you’d be comfortable with a Minister making the decision, not the courts?
JOEL FITZGIBBON: No, I wouldn’t be comfortable with the Minister making the decision. What I am comfortable with…
TONY JONES: Doesn’t that contradict what you just said a minute ago?
JOEL FITZGIBBON: No, no, because what I am comfortable with…
TONY JONES: As long as they’re out of the country the Government can make the decision.
JOEL FITZGIBBON: …is – is the Government – is the Government submitting legislation to the Parliament, legislation which is subject to independent review by the relevant Parliamentary committee, which has been doing great work to keep a check on some of these more recent attempts to change legislation and then, after that, the law being changed if the Parliament deems it acceptable to push the balance, the pendulum back away from civil liberties, to ensure we avert terrorism attacks in this country. Now, again, people will have strong views about that but me personally? If it means saving one life, I’m more open to pushing the envelope on civil liberties than many others in the room would be.
TONY JONES: Grahame Morris?
GRAHAME MORRIS: We are jumping a couple of shadows here. While we have been meeting, the Cabinet has been meeting. The party room will talk about this tomorrow morning and there will be, despite Dee Googling all over the place, there will be the court will have a role in all of this. But, you know, spare a thought for the legislators. You know, some of these people are going overseas to be trained to be killers. Some of them are shooting at our own soldiers. It is not all that long ago, if that happened, that would be called treason, they’d be shot. Now, just imagine if you are a legislator, one of these people did go overseas, came back and there was a disaster and they’d done nothing. You know, just imagine the upheaval in this country that the legislators knew this person was a complete lunatic, they let him back into the country and, apart from that, you know, we’re talking about the Court. I have seen Family Court judges in awful trouble with people who want to almost blow up the Family Court. Imagine the danger we are going to put some of the judges in if they try…
TONY JONES: Can I just say – can I just go…
DEE MADIGAN: That is the most ridiculous reason…
TONY JONES: Hang on, if you don’t mind, I’ll just go quickly back to Zaky Mallah because he, in fact, did go to Syria but he fought with the Free – or I don’t know if you fought with them but you were with the Free Syrian Army, who, of course, are backed by the United States.
ZAKY MALLAH: I didn’t fight for the Free Syrian Army. I went there to meet the Free Syrian Army and go to the frontlines and see what the war was all about. I had recorded all my experiences in Syria and it has all been, you know, put on – uploaded on YouTube, so it’s all there. But I went to Syria to experience the situation for myself and why the uprising had begun. But I just want to say a comment before this – this little discussion ends is that…
TONY JONES: If you are quick about it, go ahead.
ZAKY MALLAH: Yeah. Yeah, sure. The Liberals now have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL because of Ministers like him.
TONY JONES: Okay. I think that’s a comment we are just going to rule totally out of order. I’m sorry about that. We’re just about to end the show.
GRAHAME MORRIS: It was bloody outrageous.
TONY JONES: I don’t think there is really much more to say at this point. Steve, do you want to respond to that quickly?
STEVE CIOBO: Well, I mean, look, I stand by what I said. As best as I know, you know, your circumstances, the comments you have made, the threats you have made that you have pleaded guilty to, to me more than justify the concerns that the Government has. And, you know, I think that it is very wrong, frankly, for you to portray the Muslim population as all being incentivised to do those things because, let me tell you, I know a lot of Muslims. They’ve very good people and I think that they would be recoiling at what you just said.
TONY JONES: Okay. Now, I’m sorry, we’ve just gone over time so sorry to do this but that’s all we have time for tonight. Please thank our panel: Dee Madigan, Steve Ciobo, Antony Hegarty, Linda Tirado, Joel Fitzgibbon and Grahame Morris. Antony, that’s your cue.
In terms of back-and-forth, there are far ruder exchanges on talkback radio and television every day.
In that context, it was not a mistake to have rebroadcast the program in its regular slot the next day, despite Abbott’s claims. There was nothing that needed editing out. The mistake was in opening the door to what might have happened when you put an attention-seeking hothead on the air, not what actually happened.
Yet it’s become the omnishambles coined by The Thick Of It, the British political satire that included several episodes dedicated to a public inquiry after a man’s suicide. (I wonder where they got that inspiration from?)
The ABC is of course regulated by its own board, policies and ACMA. Not by the government.
So why has this one-day story blown up so spectacularly?
The News Corp motivation is obvious. Remember the scene in The Crying Game when the kidnapped soldier talks about the scorpion and the frog?
Why did the scorpion sting the frog? “I can’t help it. It’s in my nature.”
Beating up the ABC in is News Corp’s nature.
But what about the government? Why pick this fight with one of the Australian public’s most beloved institutions?
It’s good politics, of course.
First, it’s a wonderful distraction from headlines about Joe Hockey being a bad treasurer and so on. Every week where somebody else is the political story is a win.
And second, it’s a wonderful way of the Abbott government getting News Corp back on side without pissing off the other commercial broadcasters.
Having followed in the footsteps of former Labor media minister Stephen Conroy, Malcolm Turnbull and Abbott have chickened out of reforming the media ownership laws.
They’re scared of pissing off some of the other media moguls. But it leaves News Corp stalled with just 15% of Ten and 15% of APN, and no other obvious acquisition targets within the current ownership framework.
Which makes News Corp unhappy with Abbott. Until Zaky Mallah came along.
It’s profoundly depressing. There’s nothing that justifies the Government deciding that it should start holding its own inquiries into editorial decisions.
As Mark Scott observed last night, the ABC is a public service broadcaster, not a state broadcaster. I do urge you to read or watch his speech.
There have also been predictable calls from News Corp columnists for Scott to resign. The ABC is a much better, more confident, more digitally-ready organisation than Scott found it when he took the helm nine years ago. ABC News 24 (a rival for the News Corp-aligned Sky News), ABC iView (a rival for the News Corp-aligned Foxtel), ABC online (a rival for all of News Corp’s online mastheads) are just a few of his achievements.
I’m just about certain that they won’t succeed in getting Scott to resign. (It’s about six months since they last wanted him to. And a year since the time before that. And 18 months since the time before that.)
But it will certainly be a distraction for the final year of his leadership.
Thank god it’s only a farce though. Imagine how muchy worse it would be if it was a tragedy.
- Tim Burrowes is content director of Mumbrella
Briliant article, Tim. Spot on. Recent activity both here, and in the UK (see Jon Wilkins’ astute article in Campaign on the enduring influence of UK tabloids on election results ‘It’s still the Sun wot won it’, 11th May) suggests that however digitally adept media organisations are necessarily becoming, the power of traditional outlets, especially those owned by Rupert Murdoch, continues to wield significant influence. Despite continuous predictions to the contrary. is this change still a generation away?
User ID not verified.
Great that you’ve finally publicly nailed your colours to the pro-ABC, anti-NewsCorp mast, Tim.
You join a long and inglorious list of lefties (even those who won’t admit it to themselves).
For a site that purports to be about ‘media and marketing’ you guys sure like sinking the boots into people trying to make a buck, rather than those existing off our taxes.
User ID not verified.
Hmmm… not sure that transcript is accurate. Ciobo said that Zaky got off on a technicality….it’s missing from above….
I’m pretty angry that a tosser who posts that two (named) journo’s are whores and should be gang raped on the set of Sunrise is courted by the ABC and paid to get to the studio and has his question ‘edited’ by staffers. He’s got form for threatening to kill public servants. I think the ABC got off lightly – the govt’s point is that he is unpredictable and might very well had said something on LIVE television as extreme as he is on the record of saying in the past. This is the error of judgement by the producer. The exchange was fairly average by editorial standards – and not really worthy of the attention. Scott shouldn’t resign, but the apology for the lapse of editorial scrutiny and judgement was warranted. Zaky was used for a gotcha moment – and it worked! It could have gone very wrong – imagine if Amanda Devine was on the panel? Would the ABC producers have encouraged him to appear then?
User ID not verified.
I haven’t even seen what News Corp for Abbott have said about Zaky Mallah’s appearance on QA, but I saw it live and was immediately outraged that he had a platform to say what he did and angry that that so called “balanced” audience cheered him for it. I want my 8 cents a day back from our “National Broadcaster”.
User ID not verified.
Good summing up of the entire storm in a tea cup. If Australia adopted the UK method of funding its national broadcaster with a licence system insulated from government then we would not have the situation where the government here can vent its spleen on the ABC by cutting its funding and through self-censorship curbs the ABC’s independence.
User ID not verified.
History certainly does repeat itself. I remember in the early 70’s in London when Kenny Everett said in jest on air about the transport ministers wife passing her driving test, “I bet that was a fix”. His radio program (on BBC) was shut down within minutes and he was sacked from the BBC. Do we never learn?
User ID not verified.
Hey Robbo – settle that’s a boy. ABC staff also pay taxes. I think it is a brilliant article that nails what really happened . A govt inquiry is a completely disproportionate response to what should be an internal matter. News Corp having a field day on what usually happens on talk back radio. The debate is about free speech . I for one thought it was good to hear the views of ZM, however misguided. I think it also highlights that security may need to be stepped up (Channel 7 and Lindt cafe siege is a good example) . But for Sarah Henderson an ex ABC journo now Liberal backbencher (see how the ABC is full of lefties) to call for Peter McEvoy the EP to resign was cheap political point scoring along with Abbott and Turnbull et al. They will all try and get on the ABC ,they will all still listen to news and current affairs . But it is not THEIR ABC for them to control. It is everyone’s including the occasional dropkick. I applaud Mark Scott for his reasoned response.
User ID not verified.
Last week Abbott was thanking the ABC for producing and airing The Killing Season.
This week he’s chucking a tanty over Q&A.
Sounds like the ABC has got the balance just about right.
User ID not verified.
Terrific article Tim and one hopes that readers will watch Mr Scott’s 30 minutes
User ID not verified.
There’s little doubt that the Q&A terror sympathiser is a dreary meat-headed narcissist, but the cries against him seem rather extreme and far more important principles are at stake.
Firstly if his claims are true we seem to have ignored the presumption of innocence and locked him up for two years before eventually finding him innocent. Yes, that innocence may well have been a technical loophole, but if we allow the justice system to become a matter of pragmatic opinion rather than law we’re all in trouble.
Second comes freedom of speech. The only free speech that needs protection is unpopular speech, which this little turd spews by the bucket. As George Brandis explained so eloquently but to such civic opprobrium, people really do have the right to be bigots – this twat was merely exercising that right.
Third is the issue of what we are allowed to see and hear, and the proper role of our national broadcaster. Watching the rantings of that would-be suburban subversive taught much about the mindsets of such people, and surely that’s a more likely path to understanding and solutions than censoring him and keeping us in ignorance.
It seems to me the issue of moment is the editorial acumen of allowing a junior jihadist access to live television, and frankly that doesn’t merit more than a passing exasperated sigh.
User ID not verified.
Last year Tom Elliott interviewed the ISIS Commander, Omar Shishani, on 3AW. And gave him airtime to vent his distorted views and terrorist agenda. There was no outrage. In fact Tom was widely praised for his interview “good get”
How is this different form Zachy Mallach being allowed on Q & A. Why is there outrage for one and praise for the other. In principle the same thing occurred.
Maybe we should better to focus on understanding why Zachy Malloch was acquitted in 2005 and why. despite him continuing to make threatening and seditious statements, he hasn’t faced new charges.
User ID not verified.
Q&A is a left-wing biased waste of public money. It should be closed.
User ID not verified.
Steve Ciobo’s performance was an exquisite example of why politicians should not have the discretion to revoke anyone’s citizenship.
User ID not verified.
I will tell you one thing the ABC at least has the courage to fight back, NEWS LTD you remember Phone hacking, bribing cops it was in the UK but the same people that sanctioned it are still in Charge of NEWS LTD.
In fact James who presided over the whole mess and who should have been jailed with his Dad has now been elevated because he such a paragon to the top job,along with the other flop Lachlan nepotism is a wonderful thing.
If you believe ANYTHING written in any NEWS LTD paper you are either very right wing or extremely stupid or both NEWS has raised lying to an art form along with II Duce who they back all the way hopefully it might be their downfall
User ID not verified.
Hi Punter,
I just want to flag Media Watch did pull up the Sishani interview afterwards where it was shown not to be the ISIS commander.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawat.....069665.htm
Cheers
Nic – Mumbrella
@Ross Mitchell “Q&A is a left-wing biased waste of public money. It should be closed.”:
I dont like Murdoch front pages, but I will not ask for them to be abolished. But you want something that isn’t to your paid-for or not-paid-for tastes and opinions to be dropped. Ugh, what a ugly world that leaves us in. Best leave that one for societies consigned in the history. It’s been done, why repeat the same mistakes?
When I think about it, I only hear these kind of absolute statements on the internet. I have yet to have someone tell me like you have in text, to my face. I kind of look forward to it happening (sponteneously of course). I wonder what will go through my mind when I hear it (“this person really thinks like this?” “what led this person previously in life to feel comfortable with this way of thinking?” and so on).
I am sure in the end Abbott would like to convert the ABC to saying only what he wants (for balance) or to eradicate it. And eradicating the ABC would be a wonderous gift to Murdoch too. Of course, that wont be enough. Fairfax and The Guardian would be in the firing line next.
User ID not verified.
Are you seriously using a transcript that edits what this Zacy fellow actually said Tim?
Using a seriously edited transcript that downplays the drama by changing what he actually said to justify your arguent is beneath you Tim, and you should know better.
45 seconds in on this video will show you what he actually said, completely different to your transcript: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QggUBlWeDRk
User ID not verified.
Tim, I shudder that this foul-mouthed attention-seeker is being granted this much of a soapbox, but your transcript above is heavily edited and in some cases completely inaccurate.
You’ve left out sections of the exchange that do not support your case, and selectively edited Mr Mallah’s statements to support your article:
Your transcript:
ZM:You talk about deterrence now, but it’s the rhetoric politicians have used in the past was what attracted many Australian Muslims in the community to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL.
Actual transcript:
ZM: The Liberals have just justified to many Australian Muslims in the community tonight to leave and go to Syria and join ISIL because of ministers like him.
A slight but significant difference. I think it was at that point that Mr Mallah lost his cool and degenerated into the sort of immature posturing for which he is renowned, and with it, any respect he had garnered for his position. I support free speech, but your selective editing clouds the issue here.
User ID not verified.
(Real time of this post 7.50pm, bumped up for continuity..)
Hi Kazza and Duncan,
Thanks for flagging this – I’ve now switched over to the full ABC transcript rather than the one I was able to track down this morning.
It doesn’t alter the meaning or point, but it did indeed miss out the “tonight” element that was in the comment.
Although it’s lengthy (and in my view not all of the conversation is relevant to the above), I have left it in so people can make up their own minds…
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Well said #10 Toby Ralph
User ID not verified.
Maybe QandA seems ‘left wing bias’ because it represents the increasingly progressive view of the general public?
Maybe all these ultra conservative / privatise everything folks are an archaic type of person about to find themselves on the wrong side of history?
User ID not verified.
There are so many angry people out there who rail against publicly funded institutions and play up the old stereotypes. I don’t want to live in a country which has a totally commercial media. Regression to a very ordinary mean.
User ID not verified.
The general sense I get is that this isn’t playing into the government’s favour at all. I think the vast majority of people see Abbott and his News Corp colleagues as really crazy and stuck in some kind of ultra right-wing bizarro world. The ABC is respected. This government (and News Corp) is not.
User ID not verified.
So Tim,
The transcript is still missing chunks of Ciobo’s comments. Drew your attention to it at midday. Thought you would have amended that too.
Whatever….
User ID not verified.
Hi annemaree,
Please see my comment above – I have included the transcript in full now, even though it makes for quite a long read. While in my view some of those comments (and indeed the back-and-forth with Dee Madigan) weren’t relevant, I have included them for completeness.
Cheers,
Tim – Mumbrella
Spot on wrap-up, Tim. A farce indeed.
User ID not verified.
It has provided an excuse for the Government to go after the show and the ABC because they hate it. All that leftie bias you know. Such rubbish of course because of the what? Totally unbiased alternative? Having that attention seeking halfwit on the show was not a good call but the hooha in the aftermath has just been ridiculous. The ABC need to be mindful of who their enemies are.
User ID not verified.
Toby ralph has said it all.
this person is an insignificant attention seeker with not much between the ears. Abbott and well supported by News Corp are just using this as an excuse to bash the ABC into submission – many of those that are claiming offence were probably off watch some reality show.
So Tim a good summary of the events and let’s hope it will not impact how the ABC operates.
User ID not verified.
“In fact, he claimed that the rhetoric used by politicians might encourage that.”
Tim, I suggest you consult the transcript that you yourself have published. Zaky Mallah did not “claim” that rhetoric used by politicians “might encourage” Muslims to join ISIS. His statement went much further than some anodyne “claim” – rather, he clearly and unmistakably asserted that because of “the Liberals”, “many Australian Muslims” WERE JUSTIFIED in going to Syria to join ISIL.
“Justify” means “to show or prove to be right or reasonable”. Ergo, Zaky Mallah stated that Muslims were right to join ISIS. And the ABC gave him a national platform to assert this live on air. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. Nothing to do with UK tabloids, British Labour or sexed-up dossiers. Everything to do with facilitating the terrorist threat to the world and to Australia in specific.
User ID not verified.
The ABC should never have put that offensive, disreputable dill in front of a microphone, first mistake. Speaks for no one but himself and even that, badly.
Secondly, they were stunned and astonished to be on the defensive, hence the days of silence and inaction before the awkward and half-hearted apology by Jones, and the misreading of the issue as a freedom of speech one by Scott.
Third, ABC bias is so naked and longstanding, a tidal wave of resentment and annoyance had built up and was waiting to break over them.
User ID not verified.
This comment thread is democratic.
The ABC’s QandA supports democracy and as a result will sometimes air information from a variety of people, who represent our society.
If people think that this loud mouthed empty vessel is a total minority, they are wrong. Wake up people. Wake up and ask ‘why’.
Why are people angry at the west? Ask yourselves that question and do it with religion aside, because religion is the scape goat. Many people, in many countries are very angry with the west. Why is that and what can the west do to get these people back on side?
Think about both sides of the coin, question everything and open this up to more than tit for tat rubbish.
User ID not verified.
There’s an old joke where an army Sergeant has to tell a Private his parents have been killed in an accident.
He calls the troop on parade, says “All of you with both parents still alive step forward – where do you think you’re going Smithers?”
By the same token, is it that “left wing” is all those who are ‘to the left’ of the current Government?
Like the soldiers, the Govt’s moved so far to the Right that the rest of us are, by default, new ‘lefties’. Some kind of lateral bracket-creep?
Do fascist actions make a fascist government?
You know, “quacks like a duck…” etc
User ID not verified.
In the same breath, Transparent Seeker speaks of ‘democracy’ and of anger against the West from “many people, in many countries”.
There you have it: the international alliance of the Left and miitant Islam. The French call it ‘Islamogauchisme’.
User ID not verified.
Paridell. You are a pitch fork wielding sensationalist. The misinformed, uneducated, OR the greedy rich lot, keep harping on about ‘the left’. What do you have to lose Paridell? Is the bogie man going to come and get you in your sleep?
You have played the ‘Islam card’, (surprise surprise). I am not in any way siding with Islam? (What a profound statement to make?) Place religion to the side and assess why some people in this world could be angry (take a rational, logical approach.)
Imagine being an innocent law abiding citizen in a nation where ‘thousands of civilians’ have been killed by our bombs. (Yes, of course we unintentionally killed these civilians, in our pursuit of the bad guys), however that doesn’t make it any more tragic. It also doesn’t stop the families and the friends of the deceased from being very angry.
Just use your noddle Paridell and stop arguing a really boring and very juvenile line. [Edited by Mumbrella] focus on the facts. (If you keep kicking a pet dog, it will, at some stage, might turn around and bite.)
User ID not verified.
conversation*
User ID not verified.
Transparent, old son, your reply merely restates in a somewhat less coherent form the same points that I drew attention to in the first place, while adding a threat.
We have enough threats already, thank you.
As for leaving ‘religion’ to one side, I commend to you the following:
“The subjects of the last caliphs had undoubtedly degenerated from the zeal and faith of the companions of the prophet. Yet their martial creed still represented the Deity as the author of war: the vital though latent spark of fanaticism still glowed in the heart of their religion.”
The above is from Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, vol. 5, written in 1782. It still has a certain topicality, I think.
User ID not verified.
They are coming for us… who’s side are you on
User ID not verified.