Should the Israeli national flag be banned from flying in Australia if the flags of the terrorist organization Hezbollah are banned?
Is it “hypocrisy” not to apply such a ban to both?
These patently absurd questions, based on false equivalence, came from an ABC journalist yesterday, directed at opposition leader Peter Dutton.
That’s right, they were asked by a journalist working for the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster, not some radical, fringe new media operation dedicated to spin on behalf of anti-Israel forces in the Middle East.
Dutton was quick to point out the absurdity of what he was being asked, noting that it highlighted to him that “the ABC is in bigger trouble than I first imagined.”
That’s for sure, but not just because of the questions that are asked.
The reaction from ABC management was arguably even worse.
The phrasing of the questions, as they were, is a direct snub to ABC’s new president, Kim Williams, who has called for an end to activism among her journalists.
Does management support the ABC president’s demands?
ABC News director Justin Stevens declined to comment directly on the line of questioning, The Australian reported.
Shortly after, ABC’s reporting unit issued a weak statement of self-justification: “Questions at a press conference (yesterday) were not a report or a position taken by ABC,” the statement said.
Let’s talk about a cheerful response. Whoever wrote it should go into politics. One wonders if Williams agrees with the confused sentiment behind this.
Or if you agree that your news director apparently lets the line of questioning slide.
ABC CEO David Anderson admitted he still hadn’t bothered to look at the exchange the day after it happened, giving him the outing he presumably wanted when asked about it.
This is the ABC we are talking about, remember. The public broadcaster must be above campaigns and controversy when practicing its journalism.
But apparently ABC journalists can ask questions – in a press conference that is broadcast live and in its entirety – without them being part of their reporting.
If someone at the ABC wants to engage in left-wing activism they should join The Guardian, for example.
Private media outlets are largely free to do what they want, unlike public broadcasters, which have different responsibilities.
If somewhere like The Guardian isn’t activist enough, moving to a think tank like The Australia Institute is always an option.
There are plenty of places to turn if posting controversial lines to support your cause of the day is the name of the game.
But doing so on the taxpayer-funded station is wrong and goes against the edict issued by the president.
Although this apparently does not bother the network bosses.
Protests in Melbourne following the death of Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon
The problem is that in ABC the tail wags the dog. The culture is bottom-up in which the inmates run the asylum.
And high-profile journalists are some of the worst offenders, as we have seen very clearly in recent months.
Indeed, as ABC management was forced to admit in Senate hearings on the public broadcaster.
So it is not surprising that this activist attitude also infects the younger journalists in charge of asking direct questions at press conferences.
They see what the organization’s top “talent” does (and gets away with) and learn those bad habits for their own reporting.
There is even the suggestion that the question asked was asked over the phone by one of these more senior ABC journalists, which helps explain why management has taken such a light touch. The journalist who asked the question was seen reading from her phone.
Beyond a complete cleanup at ABC, it’s difficult to know how to fix the culturally embedded bias within the institution.
But that will never happen.
