Extract from The Guardian
Presenter claims that had program known of ‘very
offensive, misogynist’ tweet directed at two journalists, Mallah would
have been prevented from appearing
The Q&A host, Tony Jones, says the ABC program would have refused
to allow Zaky Mallah to ask a question if it had known of his “very
offensive, misogynist tweet” about two female journalists.
Jones opened Monday night’s episode with a statement addressing some of the criticisms levelled at the show for allowing Mallah, a former terrorism suspect who was convicted of threatening to kill Asio officers, to join the live studio audience last week.
The exchange between Mallah and government frontbencher Steven Ciobo prompted a barrage of criticism, with the prime minister, Tony Abbott, accusing the national broadcaster of betraying Australia and saying “heads should roll”.
Several investigations - including a government-ordered review by Malcolm Turnbull’s Department of Communications - are examining what factors the program took into account before allowing Mallah’s participation.
Jones said the Q&A team found itself in an unusual situation “because clearly one of the biggest and most controversial issues of the past week has been about events that occurred on our own program”.
“We’ve been the subject of a great deal of comment from politicians and from other media,” Jones said in a statement to camera before the panel discussed the controversy.
“The ABC itself has acknowledged that an error was made in having Mr Zaky Mallah live in the studio and as we go to air tonight there is more than one inquiry under way.”
Jones said it was “appropriate to put a couple of facts on the record”.
In an attempt to take collective responsibility, he said: “The decisions made about Q&A are made by the whole program and management team and we all take responsibility for them.”
Jones also noted that the ABC’s editorial standards “tell us to present a diversity of perspectives so that over time no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded, nor disproportionately represented”.
“Secondly, the safety and security of our panelists and the audience is always a key priority for us,” he said.
“And finally, the Q&A team were not aware at the time Zaky Mallah appeared of the very offensive misogynistic tweet that he put out about two female journalists. Had we known, we would have rejected his participation.”
Mallah tweeted in January that two prominent Australian journalists should be “gangbanged”.
After Jones’s opening statement, the panel spent more than half the episode answering questions related to the Mallah issue.
The deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, said the tweet was “very offensive” and she agreed that the inclusion of Mallah was an error of judgment, but she accused the government of responding in a “really quite emotional” tone.
The ABC had already suffered funding cuts and further attacks on the national broadcaster were “not helpful”, Plibersek said.
“I don’t always like what the ABC broadcasts,” she said, referring to The Killing Season series on the former Labor government’s disunity.
“I’ve had three very uncomfortable Tuesday nights over the last few weeks and what I’d say about the ABC is even when I don’t agree with it, I see that it does a really important job and plays a very worthwhile role in our community.”
Another panellist, the counter-terrorism expert Anne Aly, played down the potential for Mallah’s comments last week to encourage Australians to join terrorist groups in the Middle East.
“We are not about to see a mass exodus to Syria because of a public stoush between a minister and somebody wearing a funny hat on Q&A, let’s make that clear,” she said.
Aly criticised Ciobo for responding to Mallah’s question about ministerial discretion in terrorism-related issues. Ciobo told Mallah: “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.”
That comment prompted Mallah to reply: “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.”
Aly said Ciobo had missed an opportunity to “respond rationally” to Mallah’s question and contribute to debate about national security issues “free from political point scoring”.
In 2005 Mallah was acquitted of two terrorism offences but pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officials. Ali said Mallah had “done his time” and “paid his price” for that offence. Mallah had made some “shitty” remarks but could become a really important person in the debate about radicalisation, Aly said.
Tim Wilson, Australia’s human rights commissioner, said no one was calling for Mallah “to be silenced or censored”.
“I think the producers and yourself ought to be ashamed of yourselves for giving him a platform,” Wilson told Jones.
“The issue at heart is that the ABC chose to give this person a platform on live television … It is bad, because it denied the opportunity for somebody who is sensible and rational and credible to actually talk about the serious points around citizenship that exist in Australia and around those laws, which I have myself expressed genuine concerns about.
“But for then the ABC to turn it into some sort of free speech issue and try and project it as though the ABC had made just a simple error of judgment and invoked the idea that this was akin to the Charlie Hebdo massacres I found laughable and contemptuous of the substance of the issue at heart.
“And I thought it was actually a tragedy that Mark Scott [the ABC’s managing director] chose to go and do it that way and in essence mock the memory of those people and what they actually stood and died for.”
The Australian newspaper’s editor at large, Paul Kelly, said the debate was “not an issue of free speech as Mark Scott pretended last week”.
When asked about a story the Australian published in 2012 featuring Mallah speaking out against violence, Kelly said he was aware that reformed jihadists were an “enormously effective” tool to persuade people against going to Iraq and Syria to fight.
But Kelly contended that the ABC included Mallah for the purposes of creating “a tabloid gotcha moment” rather than having a proper debate about the issue.
Government ministers and MPs - along with News Corp papers and talkback hosts - have used the incident to renew their pre-existing criticism of the ABC’s judgment and balance. Some MPs suggested a blanket boycott of the program by government members, and Abbott’s parliamentary secretary, Alan Tudge, withdrew from this week’s episode, citing the pending review.
The issue also featured on the ABC’s Media Watch program. Host Paul Barry said it was reasonable to have Mallah on a program about terrorism laws, but because of his background it was a mistake to allow him to do so in a live format.
If anyone was acting like a lynch mob, Barry said, it was “certain sections of the government and News Corp”.
“It seems the culture war is on again,” Barry said.
Jones opened Monday night’s episode with a statement addressing some of the criticisms levelled at the show for allowing Mallah, a former terrorism suspect who was convicted of threatening to kill Asio officers, to join the live studio audience last week.
The exchange between Mallah and government frontbencher Steven Ciobo prompted a barrage of criticism, with the prime minister, Tony Abbott, accusing the national broadcaster of betraying Australia and saying “heads should roll”.
Several investigations - including a government-ordered review by Malcolm Turnbull’s Department of Communications - are examining what factors the program took into account before allowing Mallah’s participation.
Jones said the Q&A team found itself in an unusual situation “because clearly one of the biggest and most controversial issues of the past week has been about events that occurred on our own program”.
“We’ve been the subject of a great deal of comment from politicians and from other media,” Jones said in a statement to camera before the panel discussed the controversy.
“The ABC itself has acknowledged that an error was made in having Mr Zaky Mallah live in the studio and as we go to air tonight there is more than one inquiry under way.”
Jones said it was “appropriate to put a couple of facts on the record”.
In an attempt to take collective responsibility, he said: “The decisions made about Q&A are made by the whole program and management team and we all take responsibility for them.”
Jones also noted that the ABC’s editorial standards “tell us to present a diversity of perspectives so that over time no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded, nor disproportionately represented”.
“Secondly, the safety and security of our panelists and the audience is always a key priority for us,” he said.
“And finally, the Q&A team were not aware at the time Zaky Mallah appeared of the very offensive misogynistic tweet that he put out about two female journalists. Had we known, we would have rejected his participation.”
Mallah tweeted in January that two prominent Australian journalists should be “gangbanged”.
After Jones’s opening statement, the panel spent more than half the episode answering questions related to the Mallah issue.
The deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, said the tweet was “very offensive” and she agreed that the inclusion of Mallah was an error of judgment, but she accused the government of responding in a “really quite emotional” tone.
The ABC had already suffered funding cuts and further attacks on the national broadcaster were “not helpful”, Plibersek said.
“I don’t always like what the ABC broadcasts,” she said, referring to The Killing Season series on the former Labor government’s disunity.
“I’ve had three very uncomfortable Tuesday nights over the last few weeks and what I’d say about the ABC is even when I don’t agree with it, I see that it does a really important job and plays a very worthwhile role in our community.”
Another panellist, the counter-terrorism expert Anne Aly, played down the potential for Mallah’s comments last week to encourage Australians to join terrorist groups in the Middle East.
“We are not about to see a mass exodus to Syria because of a public stoush between a minister and somebody wearing a funny hat on Q&A, let’s make that clear,” she said.
Aly criticised Ciobo for responding to Mallah’s question about ministerial discretion in terrorism-related issues. Ciobo told Mallah: “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.”
That comment prompted Mallah to reply: “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.”
Aly said Ciobo had missed an opportunity to “respond rationally” to Mallah’s question and contribute to debate about national security issues “free from political point scoring”.
In 2005 Mallah was acquitted of two terrorism offences but pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Australian Security Intelligence Organisation officials. Ali said Mallah had “done his time” and “paid his price” for that offence. Mallah had made some “shitty” remarks but could become a really important person in the debate about radicalisation, Aly said.
Tim Wilson, Australia’s human rights commissioner, said no one was calling for Mallah “to be silenced or censored”.
“I think the producers and yourself ought to be ashamed of yourselves for giving him a platform,” Wilson told Jones.
“The issue at heart is that the ABC chose to give this person a platform on live television … It is bad, because it denied the opportunity for somebody who is sensible and rational and credible to actually talk about the serious points around citizenship that exist in Australia and around those laws, which I have myself expressed genuine concerns about.
“But for then the ABC to turn it into some sort of free speech issue and try and project it as though the ABC had made just a simple error of judgment and invoked the idea that this was akin to the Charlie Hebdo massacres I found laughable and contemptuous of the substance of the issue at heart.
“And I thought it was actually a tragedy that Mark Scott [the ABC’s managing director] chose to go and do it that way and in essence mock the memory of those people and what they actually stood and died for.”
The Australian newspaper’s editor at large, Paul Kelly, said the debate was “not an issue of free speech as Mark Scott pretended last week”.
When asked about a story the Australian published in 2012 featuring Mallah speaking out against violence, Kelly said he was aware that reformed jihadists were an “enormously effective” tool to persuade people against going to Iraq and Syria to fight.
But Kelly contended that the ABC included Mallah for the purposes of creating “a tabloid gotcha moment” rather than having a proper debate about the issue.
Government ministers and MPs - along with News Corp papers and talkback hosts - have used the incident to renew their pre-existing criticism of the ABC’s judgment and balance. Some MPs suggested a blanket boycott of the program by government members, and Abbott’s parliamentary secretary, Alan Tudge, withdrew from this week’s episode, citing the pending review.
The issue also featured on the ABC’s Media Watch program. Host Paul Barry said it was reasonable to have Mallah on a program about terrorism laws, but because of his background it was a mistake to allow him to do so in a live format.
If anyone was acting like a lynch mob, Barry said, it was “certain sections of the government and News Corp”.
“It seems the culture war is on again,” Barry said.
No comments:
Post a Comment