Post

@johnpilger

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1346544581182164993

@Snowden

More from @Consortiumnews

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 11

Last day of witness testimony for Lattouf v. ABC will begin in about 30 minutes. Live updates will be on this thread and the proceedings will be live-streamed from the Federal Court of Australia on this link:

Yesterday ended with the former ABC Chair Ita Buttrose claiming she had nothing to do with @antoinette_news' sacking, despite evidence of a number of emails she sent to subordinates that appeared to apply pressure for this outcome.

She stated in court: "I'm not happy and I wasn't happy. I didn't wish her to be removed. I didn't put pressure on anybody. It's a fantasy of your own imagination. I have nothing to do with her dismissal".

Court in session.

Judge: A media organisation has published information that was subject to a suppression order. I ask that this organisation consider their position & avoid further action.

Announcement of document that has arrived.
Next witness with be Elizabeth Green (direct manager of Lattouf). There is an objection to a part of her affidavit, starting with "this is because...". Judge reads & Lattouf lawyer objects on relevance. What is revenant is what she said or intended to say in a meeting.

Judge: Isn't that favourable for you

LL: Potentially but what is relevant is what preceded her characterisation of what she said.

Judge: I will provisionally let that evidence be led & we can deal with the matter in closing submissions.

Green takes the stand. Confirms her name & position as producer of Sydney 'Drive' show.

LL refers Green to her affidavit.

EG: It's details of a Teams meeting + screenshot I took.

Barrister Philip Boncardo for Lattouf: Did you see complaints about AL?

EG: Yes

PB: Were you told they were from lobby groups?
EG: No, not that I recall.

PB: Re conversations with Ahern. he asked you to look at AL's post. Did you know they about Israel-Palestine?

EG: Yes

PB asks about specifics of what EG said to Lattouf about social media posting & about communication to Ms McBean, legal council.

EG: I said she should be mindful, avoid posting anything about Israel-Palestine.

PB: AL had asked if she had done anything wrong
EG: I told her she was doing a good job, but keep a low profile on social media.

PB: Did you tell Lattouf she should not post anything that might appear unbalanced or not impartial.

EG: Yes

PB: Nothing about Israel-Palestine?

EG: yes I believe so

PB: You said it was OK to post anything factual and from a verified organisation?

EG: Yes

PB: Nothing controversial?

EG: Yes

PB: You got an email from AL outlining what was OK to post & you forwarded this to Ahern. And you both OKd this?

EG: Yes

PB: You gave Lattouf good feedback on her show?

EG: Yes

PB: You were copied in on an email sent by Ahern detailing why AL was on the show.

EG: Yes

PB: When you learned of an intention to dismiss AL you raised an objection that there was nothing wrong with her post?

EG: yes

PB: You were at the dismissal meeting with Ahern & Lattouf where it was explained she had breached the social media policy. Did AL say she had discussed what was OK with you?

EG: Yes

PB: Al was crying & you spent time with here. You said you were sorry & had tried to stop this, but it was coming from higher up?

EG: yes

PB: AL asked if it was about the @hrw post & you said it was about it not being balanced.

EG: Yes

PB: And she said: "How can you balance starvation (as a 'weapon of war')?

EG: I don't recall that.

PB: You said you would love AL to work at the ABC again.

EG: Yes

PB: You made notes, saying you had heard the decision came from Mr Anderson. Heard from whom?

EG: Mr Ahern

PB: You note a conference call with Ben Latimer

EG: Yes.

Read 9 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 10

Lattouf v. ABC will resume in the Federal Court of Australia in about 20 minutes time & we'll hear from five witnesses over the two days. Updates are on this thread & the proceedings can be viewed on this link.

@antoinette_news Day Six of Lattouf v. ABC in session. Judge makes announcement about violations of the confidentiality of complainants' names & addresses - and the uploading of unredacted material to the publicly available online files. ABC lawyer apologises for the human error.

@antoinette_news Today we will hear from Ahern, Buttrose & Green. Statement from ABC: does not deny the existence of the Lebanese race or ethnic extraction & that Ms Lattouf is Lebanese. Does deny this has anything to do with her dismissal.

Read 10 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 6

Our DAY FIVE reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 9.30am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️

We arrived at a point yesterday where David Anderson, the Managing Director of the ABC (Australia's national broadcaster) testified that @antoinette_news' mention of "Illegally occupied territories" of #Gaza could be interpreted as anti-semitic hate speech.

The Australian journalists' union @withMEAA has since issued a statement about outside interference that may have influenced such views within the ABC.

Court in session. Calling Christopher Nicolas Oliver-Taylor (O-T), Chief Content Officer (COT) for ABC.

Changes since affidavit - resigned from ABC.

Screenshot shown from Teams meeting

Oshie Fagir: You took a religious oath

O-T: Yes, I'm Catholic
OF: Do you know what a managed exit is?
O-T: No
OF: Do you use Signal & did you communicate about Ms Lattouf over Signal
O-T: Yes & yes, with Mr Latimer

OF reads O-T's job description - ensures compliance for editorial policies (EdPols) - - formerly over 1K people

OF - Do you understand EdPols govern on air content, and then there are Guidelines for personal use of social media & ABC distinguishes the two?

O-T Yes, but it depends on the circumstances?

OF- So personal social media activity is not ABC content & not subject to EdPols. Agree?

O-T Yes, but impartiality can come into play

OF: You were also bound by EdPols?

O-T: Yes

OF draws O-T's attention to the subject of misconduct = where employee disobeys a reasonable and lawful direction.

OF You understand the difference between direction, request and suggestion?

O-T: Yes

OF: The way Ms Lattouf (AL) was dealt with was highly abnormal. Agree?

O-T: No

OF: Ms Green was AL's line manager. Wasn't it unusual for you & ABC's MD to be involved in scrutinising the conduct of a 5-day casual employee? You disagreed.

O-T: Nods

OF: Social media misconduct should have nothing to do with EdPols or the COT, but be managed by line manager.

O-T: Not unless the MD refers it to COT. It was managed by line manager but others involved to.

OF: When did you consult with people in Culture?
O-T: I did not

OF: You understood that Lattouf was not a high profile personality?
O-T: Yes

OF: You were aware of her race & national extraction?
O-T: No

OF: You see this email you wrote, where you say she is a Lebanese Christian?

O-T: I copy/pasted this content from Mr Ahern...

OF: Of course you knew. Were you confused by this? You understand that there is a race called Lebanese Christian?

ABC lawyer: Objection

Judge asks O-T to leave the room

OF reminds judge that Fair Work Act permits use of race as a national or ethnic category

OF to O-T: You understand Lattouf was Lebanese?
O-T: I wasn't really aware of all the content of my email send to MD Anderson.

OF: You just copy/paste content to email and send?
O-T: In some cases. The criteria. for Lattouf's selection were put together by someone else.

OF: You understood Lattouf's position on the Israel-Gaza war before she was hired?

O-T: More as the week continued. I don't know if I understood her position but I knew there were published comments relating to question of partiality as a host of a live radio show.

OF: You understood when you caused her to be removed from the air that Lattouf held a view that media orgs should report ethically on Israel-Palestine?

O-T: I didn't know she held that view

OF refers to O-T sent to Ahern & Latimer, questioning her suitability for the job because of her position on Israel-Palestine & because she signed a petition.

OF: You knew her political stance when you fired her, that she was critical of the State of Israel?

O-T: No

OF: You knew she had signed a petition calling for ethical reporting on the war?

O-T: It wasn't about that, She wasn't supposed to post anything during her period of employment

OF: He dismissal was precipitated by a social media post? When did you become aware of that?
O-T: Yes. during a Teams meeting,. It was a slide shared by Mr Latimer

OF: You gave evidence at the Fair Work Commission that you had never seen that post. O-T says his memory is not clear.

OF moves on to the week of Lattouf's dismissal. O-T says he was looking at ways she could be kept on air.

OF refers to correspondence about Lattouf. There is no indication here that you saw her posts relating to diversity of voices and Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war. Correct?

O-T: I can't recall. I believe I was told by Mr Latimer

OF reads from O-T affidavit, questions the use of language defining partiality. Asks if those are lawyer's words or his.

O-T: I don't know how to answer that
OF : You understand there is an obligation for ABC employees to be impartial. On what issues?
O-T: That's a broad question but if you're a live radio host you should be impartial, there are some topics where it becomes difficult to hold personal view.

OF: The obligation applies at all times or only at work
O-T: It depends on the circumstances

OF: And if you are radio host, it applies to all subject matter? Did you understand that when Lattouf was employed by ABC she should be impartial on all subject matter at all times?

O-T: No? (O-T speaking very quietly)

OF: Lattouf was hosting the 'Mornings' show and it was a (politically) light show. That her work was not related to the Israel-Gaza war?

O-T: Yes, but there were news breaks & that was the hottest news story at the time.

OF: You wrote "her work is not related to the Israel-Gaza war. You knew the content of 'Mornings' was significantly watered down coming up to Christmas.

OF: You knew Lattouf did not present the news. That was a completely different person & different department. Correct?

O-T: Yes

OF: Was Lattouf sacked for breaching a direction?
O-T: Yes, and was not impartial - and this could have affected perception of her impartiality on air.

OF: Who gave the direction not to pst on social media

O-T: I believe it was Mr Ahern
OF: Because she was known to have certain opinions about the Israel-Gaza War?

O-T: I was told that
OF: What was her view?
O-T: I'm not sure
OF: You took a decision without knowing anything about her views?
O-T: I'm not an expert on the issues. I was told there was a problem related to impartiality.
OF: You knew complaints were made by a pro-Israel lobby?
O-T: I knew there had been a number of complaints. I don't believe I knew it was a lobby. It was by people who held a different view to Ms Lattouf. That was clear.

OF: You understood that the complaints were about her position on the Israel-Gaza war.

O-T: Yes
OF: You have been instructed not to acknowledge Ms Lattouf's position & just use the catch-phrase "impartiality", right?

O-T: I don't agree with that statement.

OF On Dec 18, did you know who Lattouf was?
O-T: I don't think so
OF: Did Anderson know her?
O-T: I don't know sir
OF: You knew complaints were about her position on the war?
O-T: Yes, Mr Anderson told me
OF: And you told Mr Ahern to seek advice Latimer & Saska?
O-T: Yes they were the experts on subject matter

OF: On what basis has the ABC authority to forbid Lattouf from expressing her views?

O-T: Our concern about impartiality
OF You note Latimer's advice that the ABC could not expect a casual presenter's view to be consistent with ABC policy at all times? You agree with that?

O-T: Yes
OF: And you note Melkman's comments about her Crikey article, that it was clearly journalistic work?

OF: Yes
O-T: You agreed with Melkman's view (as acting editorial director)?
O-T: Yes

OF You then get an email from Ahern & see mention of Lattouf's views on the Israel-Gaza war. Did you read it?

O-T: Briefly
OF: You had a lot of emails about this. Was it a priority issue?
O-T: Yes but it wasn't about something I knew much about.

OF: Your affidavit speaks of what was in your mind the week of the dismissal.
O-T: There were lots of things going on. I was running 9 radio stations & 4 RV channels
OF: But there's a lot about this matter in you affidavit.
O-T: I remember different things at different times.

OF: You have no reason to doubt what was in Ahern's email? Your view when you wrote to the MD was that Lattouf had expressed views that would be problematic?

O-T: During her period of employment
OF You understood there would be no coverage of Israel-Gaza that week?

O-T: Yes
OF: Did you think AL's signing a petition was relevant?
O-T: No but others were concerned
OF: You recall a series of texts the MD sent you that evening of Dec 18?
O-T: Yes

OF, referring to the one saying MD thought "we have an Antoinette problem. Her socials are full of anti-semitic hatred" and doubting ABC could have someone like that on air. Did you think he was right?

O-T: I did know much about the issue. I was concerned that she was on live radio.

OF: You had no idea what she was posting?

O-T: I agreed with Anderson that we had a problem because she was live.

OF: You were sent a screenshot about Crikey reporting by Lattouf & Cameron Wilson. What's problematic about her contributing to a Crikey article?

O-T: My concern was that she was live.
OF: ABC journalists publish articles every day where they express their opinions. Should this disqualify them from working at the ABC.

O-T: I'm not a journalist. When an MD uses words like "ant-semitic hatred" I become concerned.

OF: Didn't you say you didn't know anything about Lattouf's views, but were aware on the evening of Dec 18 that she was critical of the State of Israel?

O-T: MD told me that and supplied a screenshot.

Judge asks O-T to leave court. Discussion about line of questioning. OF says O-T was a decision-maker. The allegation was that Lattouf was sacked because of her political views. He wants to educe evidence that O-T was ate of those views. Judge suggests he take question in two steps. O-T returns.

Read 11 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 5

Our DAY FOUR reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 10.45am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️

@antoinette_news #LattoufvABC Day 4 hearing will begin in 15 minutes.

Lattouf lawyer Oshie Fagir (OF) continues questioning ABC managing director Mr Anderson (A).

Establishes that being fired by Australia's national broadcaster is a serious matter. Reminds A that he said all staff were well aware of ABC policies and guidelines.

OF: I asked if there were other rules not communicated to staff & only in the minds of management.

A: No, I cited sections of the EdPols regarding objectivity, which are in part informed by guidelines.

OF: What is objective journalism? Does that require qualification?

A: Reads extract and claims this to be clear.

OF Your view is that if a person's conduct in their private communications is perceived not to be impartial then that undermines the ABC's integrity?

A: That is the starting point for an investigation.

OF: You recall we spoke about a number of other ABC presenters who had made statements that were clearly not impartial, yet they were not sanctioned.

A: Because they were based on fact.

OF: So it didn't matter that millions of Australian would disagree with the statement "Australia is a racist country and always has been", by Laura Tingle?

A: No

OF: The critical point is whether the statement is true?

A: Yes

OF: Would you agree that the process you describe is arbitrary?

A: No, an investigation ensues & someone senior decides whether there should be a sanction or removal.

OF: Who decides whether a statement is true?

A: A delegate decides whether the statement is accurate.

Judge: Is this a typical process or the process.

A: Sometimes no decision needs to be made since there is no case to answer.

OF: You understand Ms Lattouf was fired because she posted something on social media. Was this process followed?

A: No

OF: You are the ABC's MD & have a deep understanding of its processes for dealing with misconduct. I want to understand your views on these processes.

ABC lawyer objects on relevance. A asked to leave the court.

OF: I want to understand why A took no steps to ensure an investigation took place, as required in the process he describes.

Judge: Are you suggesting A's understanding of the enterprise agreement is relevant?

OF: Yes, and according to ABC processes, I want to determine why he did not assure compliance.

Judge: I deem the line of questioning relevant.

ABC: Word of caution about the actual nature of the pleading.

OF to A: Should a process have been followed that wasn't.

A: I think an assessment was warranted. My understanding is that allegations were not put to Ms Lattouf.

OF: Nor was a support person or outside assessor appointed?

A: No, Ms Lattouf was not approached.

OF: In the case of Laura Tingle she was counseled but not in relation to her comments about racism in Australia?

A: Correct

OF: Complaints have been made about ABC presenter Paul Barry?

A: Yes

OF: He was never taken off air?

A: No

OF: And companies were received about John Lyons & Patricia Karvalas?

A: Yes

OF: Sanctioned or taken off air?

A: No

OF: So expressing political opinion does not necessarily cause sanction or dismissal?

A: No

OF: I'm suggesting ABC processes invite arbitrary decision-making, ultimately resting upon a delegate's own view?

A: There is a process of assessment

OF: And the presenter would normally be aware of what they had done?

A: Yes

Judge asks A to leave the room. Addresses OF. I thought you would ask A why he had not assured due process. Can you do this more directly?

OF: You know Lattouf was not a political reporter for the ABC?

A: Yes

OF: And so her personal social media post could not have had an impact on her partiality in air?

A: It could have.

OF: The ABC was subject to a coordinated campaign about Ms Lattouf?

A Yes, there were about 50 emails that were worded almost the same.

OF: Bearing in mind that it is not uncommon for the ABC to "ruffle feathers", are such communications looked into?

A: Yes

OF: How did you learn about the WhatsApp campaign?

A: I was told by a subordinate that the campaign was coordinated via WhatsApp. The emails were clogging up my email account. They were all the same so I stopped reading them.

OF: They said Ms Lattouf was anti-semitic.

A: Yes.

OF: You knew the campaign was coordinated by Lawyers for Israel?

A: I learned that later.

OF: You came to agree with the complaints that Ms Lattouf's criticism of Israel were ant-semitic?

A: I looked at her social media posts. I can't remember exactly what constituted anti-semitic hatred; whether it was her statements or surrounding statements.

OF: You mean other people's statements?

A: Yes. I became concerned about what Lattouf might say on air.

Read 11 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 4

Our DAY THREE reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 10.15am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️

Court will call on two documents from Feb 6 2025 & Jan 31 2025. The Applicant t has been given them.

ABC: The Applicant's intro jumbled the chronology of events. We will correct that. The decision that Lattouf would not continue to present was made solely by Mr Oliver-Taylor.

The only question for the court is the immediate reason for his decision.

A thread the Applicant wishes to construct is that Ms Buttrose, Anderson & Oliver-Taylor were hostile to Lattouf. There was only a perception of partiality in her social media posting.

A second thread is that complaints the ABC influenced actions taken. This is not so.

Now I'd like to turn to the contract between ABC & Lattouf.

ABC: Lattouf's contract mentions dates, hourly rate of pay, enterprise agreement, basis of agreement. It's a casual employment contract, which includes "should you be offered...", plus a variation term, which gives the ABC the right to alter dates before AND during the period of employment.

The contract also deals with the subject of termination. There is an agreement clause, which specifies ABC policies.

Lattouf began her employment on Monday Dec 18 2023. Less than 2 hours after her first program ended...

Judge wants to see intermediary correspondence.

Less than 2 hours after her first program ended, ABC began to receive complaints about Lattouf. Some came to Mr Anderson who forwarded them to Mr Oliver-Taylor & Mr Melkman, asking them to look into the matter.

Read 20 tweets

Consortium News

@Consortiumnews

Feb 3

x.com/Consortiumnews…

Our DAY TWO reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 10.15am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️
youtube.com/watch?v=ewJZTJ…

Read our DAY ONE account below.
x.com/Consortiumnews… x.com/Consortiumnews…

https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1749369434613928063

@antoinette_news Some background information on Lattouf's case.

https://x.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1749369434613928063

Recent longitudinal study of media bias on Israel-Palestine reporting at ABC Australia, providing context to the unlawful dismissal case of @antoinette_news.

johnmenadue.com/palestinian-vo…

"The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is widely regarded as one of the most trusted brands in Australian media. This trust is underpinned by the ABC’s editorial policies. Among these policies, the principles of independence, impartiality, and diversity of perspectives are foundational.

For example, two principles are “Do not unduly favour one perspective over another” and “Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political [interests].”"

Read 31 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Consortium News

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @Consortiumnews

Consortium News

Consortium News

Consortium News

Consortium News

Consortium News

Consortium News

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!