‘Urgent’ report into Zaky Mallah’s Q&A appearance fails to make any recommendations
The government’s “urgent review” into the ABC over the appearance of former terror suspect Zaky Mallah on the Q&A program 10 days ago has been released, but does not make any recommendations around the incident.
A publicly available three page summary of the report chronicles the events leading up to and including Mallah’s appearance, who made the decision to rebroadcast the show in subsequent days and details how “962 complaints had been logged by the ABC” about the show. The ABC says it has received more than 900 calls of support since the broadcast.
.@steveciobo says he would have banished a person for making threats of terrorism. #QandA http://t.co/zPeOcUMbbB
— ABC Q&A (@QandA) June 22, 2015
A media storm erupted over the ABC’s decision to allow Mallah to appear in the audience and ask a question when controversial tweets and YouTube posts he had made were uncovered. The ABC’s failure to pick these up before his appearance is noted in the report.
While the summary does not include a section on the physical security protocols relating to the studio audience, which has been classified for “security” reasons, a spokesman for the Minister for Communications confirmed the full version of the report does not contain any recommendations.
Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced last Thursday the Department of Communications would launch its own review into the Q&A episode with the report understood to have been delivered to Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Tuesday.
At the time the Prime Minister said it was “utterly incomprehensible” the ABC had “compounded the mistake” by rebroadcasting the episode and arguing “frankly, heads should roll over this, heads should roll over this.”
There has been media speculation that Turnbull’s departmental report may have been a political ploy by the minister to avoid conflict with the Prime Minister’s office.
Among details set out in the report is that the decision to rebroadcast the program was made by ABC director of television Richard Finlayson in consultation with Mark Scott, the ABC managing director, and Alan Sunderland, head of editorial policy.
The report notes that “(together they) made the editorial judgement to include the additional advisory material, which was drafted in consultation with the Director of Corporate Affairs (Michael Millett).
“It had also been seen by many viewers and widely reported, so not repeating it in full would have had in their view no effect.”
The report also notes that: “Mallah was well known to the Q&A editorial management team. He had first registered to be an audience member in 2011, had attended Q&A as an audience member on two occasions and been booked as an audience member on another three occasions but cancelled his booking on the day of the broadcast.”
It also reveals that Mallah had asked twice to be a panellist on the show but was rejected both times.
The report notes: “Mallah’s selection as a general audience member for the 22 June 2015 episode appears consistent with Q&A’s general practices, drawing on their database of registrations of interest.”
The ABC appears to have failed to have found the key tweets and Youtube posts by Mallah which have stirred the most controversy, while staff tried but failed to make contact with two people to get background on Mallah, who had previously pleaded guilty to threatening the life of an ASIO officer.
“After attempts to contact two people familiar with Mr Mallah were unsuccessful, the Q&A team relied on its previous experience with Mr Mallah, the advice of another ABC journalist, a review of a recent television appearance and a review of his social media posts undertaken in August 2014, which did not include Mr Mallah’s offensive tweets posted in early 2015 or his recent YouTube videos,” the report finds.
The ABC has now launched its own internal review, led by television journalist Ray Martin and former SBS managing director Shaun Brown, while the ABC board this issued a formal warning to Q&A executive producer Peter McEvoy over the incident.
Last week managing director Mark Scott acknowledged Mallah should not have been in the audience.
“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,” he said.
The ABC’s report into the incident will be completed and published later this year.
Nic Christensen
The full Department of Communications report:
Lets not get distracted by this and focus on the real story here.
The worst Government in history and what they are doing.
This is of course just a pretext for more cuts to the ABC.
User ID not verified.
What an absolute crock this whole thing is!
A complete beat-up and intimidation exercise by the government and the Murdoch media. 12 days of multiple page, headlined, confected outrage. The ABC/Mallah was apparently the pre-eminent ‘news’ around the globe for that time. According to the Murdoch media, scourge of every democracy in which it features (see UK).
The ABC did commit a grievous error. It caved into bullies and apologised. It has done absolutely nothing to apologise for. It adhered to every protocol for assessing a guest. Mallah’s question was entirely relevant, and his retort to Ciobo was nowhere near as offensive as Ciobo’s reply that prompted the retort.
Every possible claim against Mallah’s appearance falls over on the least examination. It’s simply garbage manufactured by the most secretive, scrutiny-shy dangerous government that Australia has ever had, aided and abetted by the most sleazy scurrilous media outfit across 3 continents.
User ID not verified.
Sadly this government is playing the scaremongering card to ensure that the naive vote for them in the next election.
It would be great to see a piece in Mumbrella around the reach of Murdoch’s machine, in terms of traditional, digital and now social and whether it is growing in reach and influence v the competition. Predictions, analysis, it would all make a very interesting read.
It amazes me how many people vote LNP when they would be so much better off with one of the other parties in government. Again they are hoodwinked, through fear and ultimately lies, it would appear.
It is an interesting space and the next election will be a ripper to watch, although the one sided bias of the Murdoch press will be excruciatingly cringe-worthy and I am sure; in very poor taste.
User ID not verified.
What I wonder is, for all those rich bogans who are voting for the LNP *guaranteed*, because 1) they always have, but more importantly 2) the LNP does their financial/tax minimisation/family-trusts-are-sacred administrative work for them, how far does Abbott have to grind up society before their disgust overrides their financial advantage through the LNP? Oooo I wonder….
I imagine there is some sort of terror alert colour chart. This whole thing over Q&A, and over the Death Cult stuff, plus whatever really crazy laws they pass with the help of the ALP in the next 12 months, will push these nicenice middle class people into the red. Maybe that is why the Greens have gone all mainstream – so there is an alternative to the LNP, and they scoop up a few blue ribbon seats! (the one they were calling Malcolm Turnbull to form…).
Just interested from a sociological view btw. Maybe call it a, national Abbott research project on stretching peoples boundaries before they snap done-without-consent, as you will…
User ID not verified.
So the PM believes that the ABC should know that a specific person would be a hazard to human life were he to be allowed entry to a live TV program? How would they know that exactly? Or is the ABC required to refuse access to its studios to any person who has, at any time, been accused of a crime?
It is the not the ABC’s job to secure Australia against terrorism. The ABC’s job is to secure Australia against ignorance.
Judging from opinion polling, the public does not believe that either the PM or the Opposition Leader is capable. Maybe that’s the real issue.
User ID not verified.
Standard Conservative Tactics, this scaremongering is working.
I am now scared shitless that it will work and we’ll get three more years of Abbott and his reactionary politics.
User ID not verified.
Ray Martin is clearly biased and the wrong choice by the ABC to conduct their ‘internal’ review, the obvious choice to conduct this review to ensure a fair and balanced outcome would be Piers Akerman.
User ID not verified.
Paul you make a good point.
But this issue is SO serious that we shouldn’t entrust weeding out the lefties in that hot-bed of communism we call the ABC to just one person.
I would suggest a select panel comprising Piers Akerman, Andrew Bolt, Ray Hadley, Alan Jones and Janet Albrechtsen.
And to ensure its impartiality it should be chaired by Bronwyn Bishop. (And anyone who disagrees with this proposal can then be ejected).
User ID not verified.