The ABC versus News Corp and Abbott: This farce is about politics, not terrorism

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?

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.

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?

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”.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Terrific article Tim and one hopes that readers will watch Mr Scott’s 30 minutes

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.

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.

Q&A is a left-wing biased waste of public money. It should be closed.

Steve Ciobo’s performance was an exquisite example of why politicians should not have the discretion to revoke anyone’s citizenship.

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

@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.

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

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.

Well said #10 Toby Ralph

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?

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.

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.

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….

Spot on wrap-up, Tim. A farce indeed.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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

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’.

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.)

conversation*

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.

They are coming for us… who’s side are you on