The Age has revealed the dismissal of ABC broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf last December 20 was the nasty fruit of a campaign waged against chair Ita Buttrose and managing director David Anderson.

The official reason for Lattouf’s dismissal was ordinary: she shared a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”.

It also noted the express intention of Israeli officials to pursue this strategy. Actions were also documented: the deliberate blocking of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid”.

Lattouf shared it after management directed staff not to post on “matters of controversy”.

Prior to The Age revelations, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter — which was intended for five shows.

The Australian, owned by News Corp, had issues with Lattouf’s statements on various online platforms. It found it strange in December that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance”.

She was accused of denying that some protesters had called for Jews to be gassed outside the Sydney Opera House on October 7. She also dared to accuse the Israeli Defence Forces of committing rape.

Leaked messages from a WhatsApp group called ‘Lawyers for Israel’ indicate that Australia’s public broadcaster – ABC – might have been lobbied into firing journalist Antoinette Lattouf.@meenakshirv reports. pic.twitter.com/1Nfl2kEDx6

— The Listening Post (@AJListeningPost) January 19, 2024

‘Lot of people really upset’
It was considered odd that she discussed food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths”. That “left a lot of people really upset’,” The Australian said.

If war is hell, Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it — at least concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

What has also come to light is that the ABC’s managers were not targeting Lattouf on their own. Pressure had been exercised from outside the media organisation.

According to The Age, WhatsApp messages by a group called “Lawyers for Israel” had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign.

Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein told members of that group to contact the federal Minister for Communications asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show” the day Lattouf was sacked.

They said employing Lattouff breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on “impartiality”.

Stein went on to insist that: “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.”

No ‘generic’ response
She goes on to say that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel”.

Did such threats have any basis? Even Stein admits: “There is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one — just investigating one. I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.”

It was designed to attract attention from ABC chairperson Ita Buttrose, and it did.

Robert Goot, deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and part of the same group, boasted of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her “anti-Israeli” stance.

There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.

Nour Haydar, a political reporter in the ABC’s Parliament House bureau and another journalist of Lebanese descent, resigned on January 12 citing concern about the ABC’s coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza.

There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC news director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve coverage.

Journalists need to ‘take a stand’ over the Gaza carnage after latest killings

Must not ‘take sides’
“Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens told staff. “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.”

This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the line, however credible they might be.

What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes and brings about conditions approximating genocide.

Little wonder then that coverage of South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on the ABC.

Palestinians and Palestinian militias, however, can always be described as savages, rapists and baby slayers. Throw in fanaticism and Islam and you have the complete package ready for transmission.

Coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the mainstream media of most Western countries, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

After her resignation, Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald: “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep.  Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.”

#NoFearNoFavour https://t.co/JXq9TiI6Zu

— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 16, 2024

Sharing divisive topics
Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war, and any other divisive topic, is shared with the public.

The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth.

Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois.

“We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.”

Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at Lattouf’s treatment, suggesting the ABC had erred.

ABC’s senior management, via a statement from Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial. He rejected “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity”.

Dr Binoy Kampmark is a senior lecturer in global studies at RMIT University, Melbourne. This article was first published by Green Left Magazine and is republished here with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Reporters Without Borders

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called on Nauru to rescind its decision to bar Australia’s public radio and TV broadcaster, ABC, from covering the Pacific Islands Forum that is being hosted there next month.

Journalists must be able to work with complete freedom, the Paris-based media freedom watchdog RSF said.

Nauru’s government has cited “harassment” and “lack of respect towards our president” as grounds for banning the ABC from covering this annual meeting of 18 South and North Pacific island nations, which usually receives a great deal of media coverage due on September 1-9.

READ MORE: Nauru media ban on ABC targets Australian detention centre gag

A three-member Australian press pool had been envisaged, with ABC providing the TV coverage, until the Nauruan authorities announced that no ABC representative would be allowed into the country because of the broadcaster’s “continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

“The grounds given by Nauru’s authorities are completely specious, so we urge them to rescind this decision and to provide ABC with press accreditation,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

-Partners-

“This island has become a news and information black hole because of the refugee processing centre it hosts for the Australian government. We also condemn the hypocritical silence from the Australian authorities, who have not lifted a finger to defend their public broadcaster.”

When asked about the ban on the ABC, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull simply described it as “regrettable,” making it clear that his government was not going to try to persuade Nauru to allow journalists to work there freely

This small island nation is often described as a “Pacific gulag” or “Australia’s Guantanamo” because it allows Australia to operate a refugee detention centre there in exchange for millions of Australian dollars.

The UN has often criticised conditions in the camp.

Journalists are clearly unwelcome in Nauru. As RSF noted in its recent report on the obstacles to media coverage of refugee routes, Nauru charges 8000 euros for a visa application that is not refundable even when the visa is denied, which is usually the case.

And to further limit media attention, Nauru found another radical solution – blocking access to Facebook for three years.

Australia is ranked 19th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2018 World Press Freedom Index.

The Pacific Media Centre’s Pacific Media Watch freedom project collaborates with Reporters Without Borders.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Nauru’s controversial ban on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation from attending the main annual Pacific political summit next month has appalled New Zealand journalists but they have stopped short of wanting to join a threatened boycott.

Host nation Nauru has restricted media access and banned the ABC from attending the 49th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Summit on September 3-6 due to alleged “biased and false reporting”.

Only seven accredited New Zealand journalists will be allowed to attend the summit.

READ MORE: Nauru’s ban on ABC splits commercial media

The chair of the NZ Parliamentary Press Gallery, Stacey Kirk, says she shares the concern of Australia’s Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery – which has threatened a boycott – and is appalled by Nauru’s efforts to control the media by banning and restricting the number of reporters.

Kirk told Asia Pacific Report “while infrastructure constraints play a role in the limited pooling numbers, we are appalled by this attempt to control the media coverage.

“To ban media based on unfavourable coverage is a clear violation of freedom of expression. This decision already follows restrictive reporting conditions, limiting the number of journalists who can attend this important regional summit.”

Shocked and furious
Claire Trevett, deputy political editor of the New Zealand Herald, says she is shocked and furious that only seven representatives from New Zealand would be allowed to attend and cover the summit.

She says that although there is limited accommodation in the island nation, the Nauruan authorities have the capacity to house more journalists then they intend to.

“Nauru has claimed the reason is limited space/accommodation there, but Niue – which is smaller – managed to host it without such strenuous limits in 2007, and Nauru itself has hosted it in the past without the limits.”

The Republic of Nauru said in this policy statement on its official website:

“No representative from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation will be granted a visa to enter Nauru under any circumstances, due to this organisation’s blatant interference on Nauru’s domestic politics… harassment and lack of respect towards our President in Australia, false and defamatory allegations against members of our Government, and continued biased and false reporting about our country.”

The government has also said that limited accommodation has forced restrictions on the number of other reporters from covering the event, adding that “there has been no other restrictions placed on media attendance for any other reason”.

Australia’s Federal Parliamentary Press Gallery president David Crowe issued a response to the ban, saying the decision was appalling and threatened a media boycott from all Australian media from the event.

If the ABC could not go, the media pool should not go.

‘Dangerous precedent’
Crowe says a pool group of journalists who cover federal parliament had been set up to report on the summit which met restrictions previously set out by Nauru, but picking and choosing which journalists could cover the forum was going too far.

“If the ban is not reversed, the media pool will be disbanded. If one cannot go, none will go. It sets a dangerous precedent. What other Australian media might be banned from a similar group by another government in the future?

“We stand for a free press, not a banned one.”

ABC has declared it “does not intend to vacate” its place in Australia’s pool of journalists’ reporting on the summit.

Nauru has defied criticism and stood by its ban on the ABC, reminding journalists it was a privilege to enter Nauru and the country had the right to refuse entry to anyone entering whom they believed may pose a threat to their security.

“It is arrogant, disrespectful and a further example of the sense of entitlement shown by this activist media organisation. The Australian media does not decide who enters Nauru,” the government said.

Nauru said any restrictions placed on journalists other than ABC were due to limited accommodation, that all footage would be provided for media unable to attend and at least one Australian television media outlet would be invited to cover the summit.

Controlling the narrative
Host of RNZ’s Dateline Pacific programme Don Wiseman says it is clear Nauru is trying to control the narrative.

Wiseman says the journalists who get to Nauru are likely be stopped from reporting on any activities outside of the summit due to the severe restrictions.

However, rather than a boycott, any reporting is better than none, he says.

“It’s a good moral decision, but the other part is that it’s better to be there and to report on all the various and nefarious things going on in Nauru if you can.

“Nauru is a small place. It doesn’t have much accommodation, but it has more than it used to have. They’ve just chosen not to because they’re anti-media.”

Wiseman says the Australian government has been unwilling to criticise Nauru’s treatment of journalists, saying it is “compromised” because of its heavily criticised detention camps on Nauru.

“If no one speaks out it will become a battle between the guys running the show and some journalists, and if the Australian government doesn’t speak out, which it hasn’t done, it’s essentially been supportive of what Nauru’s done in the way in which it’s treated journalists.

“The reality is the boycott will go ahead. A number of people have been told they have visas, but if there are restrictions I would imagine it will be a universal say no.”

The Australian Federal press gallery is yet to confirm a boycott, but commentators say it is unlikely the Nauru government will reverse its ban on the ABC.

Maxine Jacobs is a postgraduate student journalist on the Asia Pacific Journalism Studies course at AUT University.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz