This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/26/the-qa-scandal-is-very-very-serious-we-know-because-weve-been-told-so

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Q&A scandal is very, very serious. We know because we've been told so The Q&A scandal is very, very serious. We know because we've been told so
(35 minutes later)
Did Tony Abbott actually say that “heads should roll” at the ABC over Q&A program on Monday night? Bless him. And was defence minister Kevin Andrews, one of the dullest men in politics, sending himself up when he declared that he would boycott the show? Did he expect the spontaneous cheers of a grateful nation?Did Tony Abbott actually say that “heads should roll” at the ABC over Q&A program on Monday night? Bless him. And was defence minister Kevin Andrews, one of the dullest men in politics, sending himself up when he declared that he would boycott the show? Did he expect the spontaneous cheers of a grateful nation?
Surely the government and News Corp newspapers, revelling in their indignation, aren’t serious when they splutter about the ABC’s crime of repeating Monday’s night’s show in the normal way, without cutting out the terrorist bit?Surely the government and News Corp newspapers, revelling in their indignation, aren’t serious when they splutter about the ABC’s crime of repeating Monday’s night’s show in the normal way, without cutting out the terrorist bit?
At this point, the absurdity of this story, the delicious outrage, the mashed up notions of “free speech”, must surely have reached its dizzying peak.At this point, the absurdity of this story, the delicious outrage, the mashed up notions of “free speech”, must surely have reached its dizzying peak.
We know many Australians have turned off politics. We know we’re in a “post-truth” era. We grimace whenever a politician speaks of “trust” and we lack faith that our system is capable of dealing with, or even discussing rationally, the big challenges that face us.We know many Australians have turned off politics. We know we’re in a “post-truth” era. We grimace whenever a politician speaks of “trust” and we lack faith that our system is capable of dealing with, or even discussing rationally, the big challenges that face us.
The ABC’s Killing Season was a reminder, if we needed reminding, of how small and bitter Australian politics is. This government and opposition have a few different players now, but the game remains the same.The ABC’s Killing Season was a reminder, if we needed reminding, of how small and bitter Australian politics is. This government and opposition have a few different players now, but the game remains the same.
In this era, politicians and the media must have symbolic stories, not about terribly much, with little at stake, but which can be whipped up into issues of monumental significance. It’s rarely about the actual story. This Q&A one is about a government desperate for a national security election. It’s about News Corp’s need for enemies. And Twitter must get into a lather about something. And conservatives must kick and kick the ABC until it bleeds.In this era, politicians and the media must have symbolic stories, not about terribly much, with little at stake, but which can be whipped up into issues of monumental significance. It’s rarely about the actual story. This Q&A one is about a government desperate for a national security election. It’s about News Corp’s need for enemies. And Twitter must get into a lather about something. And conservatives must kick and kick the ABC until it bleeds.
Already, it’s hard to remember what this is about. The bare facts are that Q&A invited Zaky Mallah to put a question about the government’s plan to strip the citizenship of dual-national alleged terrorists. Mallah was acquitted of terrorism offences in 2005 but pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Asio officials.Already, it’s hard to remember what this is about. The bare facts are that Q&A invited Zaky Mallah to put a question about the government’s plan to strip the citizenship of dual-national alleged terrorists. Mallah was acquitted of terrorism offences in 2005 but pleaded guilty to threatening to kill Asio officials.
Mallah’s question went off the rails, and he ended up suggesting that it was ministers like Steve Ciobo (who said he would be happy if someone like Mallah was thrown out of the country) who were “justifying” young Muslims to go overseas and join Islamic State (Isis). The next day, the ABC said it was an “error of judgement” to invite Mallah and it launched an inquiry into what had happened.Mallah’s question went off the rails, and he ended up suggesting that it was ministers like Steve Ciobo (who said he would be happy if someone like Mallah was thrown out of the country) who were “justifying” young Muslims to go overseas and join Islamic State (Isis). The next day, the ABC said it was an “error of judgement” to invite Mallah and it launched an inquiry into what had happened.
That’s it. Everyone’s got to have an opinion, and here’s mine: I don’t think the ABC should have asked Mallah to ask a question in a live television format. Free speech doesn’t mean everyone gets to have their say on national television. Editors and producers exercise judgment on these sorts of issues all the time – it’s their job.That’s it. Everyone’s got to have an opinion, and here’s mine: I don’t think the ABC should have asked Mallah to ask a question in a live television format. Free speech doesn’t mean everyone gets to have their say on national television. Editors and producers exercise judgment on these sorts of issues all the time – it’s their job.
Mallah’s views are extreme. He says he regrets his earlier crimes, and he renounces Isis. But he supports the Syria-based Jabhat Al Nusra, which Australia nominates as a terrorist group that adheres to the jihadist views of al-Qaida. He supports the caliphate. His tweets stating that two News Corp columnists are “whores” who need to be “gangbanged” are violent and misogynist. Mallah’s views are extreme. He says he regrets his earlier crimes, and in a piece explaining his comments on Q&A for Guardian Australia, said he is “not a supporter of Isis. I hate Isis”. But he supports the Syria-based Jabhat Al Nusra, which Australia nominates as a terrorist group that adheres to the jihadist views of al-Qaida. He supports the caliphate. His tweets stating that two News Corp columnists are “whores” who need to be “gangbanged” are violent and misogynist.
In an interview, all that can be reported and scrutinised. He can be asked tough questions and can be edited. I agree with communications minister Malcolm Turnbull that the live Q&A format gave him a free kick and that was troubling. But reasonable people can argue this out. The ABC believes it made an error. It happens.In an interview, all that can be reported and scrutinised. He can be asked tough questions and can be edited. I agree with communications minister Malcolm Turnbull that the live Q&A format gave him a free kick and that was troubling. But reasonable people can argue this out. The ABC believes it made an error. It happens.
So why the frenzy? The fury? The indignation? It’s laughable, surely, a joke on all of us. Turnbull announced that the government – the government! – will hold an “urgent” inquiry into the incident. With a grim face, Turnbull said the government was taking this “very, very seriously”. We know, Malcolm, we know.So why the frenzy? The fury? The indignation? It’s laughable, surely, a joke on all of us. Turnbull announced that the government – the government! – will hold an “urgent” inquiry into the incident. With a grim face, Turnbull said the government was taking this “very, very seriously”. We know, Malcolm, we know.
Victorian MP and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson has demanded, with very few facts known, that Q&A’s executive producer Peter McEvoy be sacked. Other MPs have suggested the program should be taken off the air. Abbott says that this is so serious that “heads should roll”.Victorian MP and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson has demanded, with very few facts known, that Q&A’s executive producer Peter McEvoy be sacked. Other MPs have suggested the program should be taken off the air. Abbott says that this is so serious that “heads should roll”.
Why? Because a producer or producers made an error? Or is it that Mallah’s badly worded blather amounted to a national security risk, that we all should be terrified because Q&A might have encouraged people to join Isis? Really?Why? Because a producer or producers made an error? Or is it that Mallah’s badly worded blather amounted to a national security risk, that we all should be terrified because Q&A might have encouraged people to join Isis? Really?
On Tuesday, Abbott demanded the ABC decide “whose side are you on?”, a statement so out of proportion, and so antagonistic to the idea of a free media, it remains stunning that News Corp newspapers cheer from the sidelines.On Tuesday, Abbott demanded the ABC decide “whose side are you on?”, a statement so out of proportion, and so antagonistic to the idea of a free media, it remains stunning that News Corp newspapers cheer from the sidelines.
By Thursday, Abbott said the ABC’s actions were a “betrayal, if you like, of our country”. At this stage, such a statement isn’t even shocking. ABC managing director Mark Scott tried to answer the “whose side are you on” question during a speech on Thursday night. He said that the ABC was “on the side of Australia. The A in ABC is for Australian”.By Thursday, Abbott said the ABC’s actions were a “betrayal, if you like, of our country”. At this stage, such a statement isn’t even shocking. ABC managing director Mark Scott tried to answer the “whose side are you on” question during a speech on Thursday night. He said that the ABC was “on the side of Australia. The A in ABC is for Australian”.
Scott felt he had to explain the difference between “state” media – a public relations arm of the government of the day - and independent “public” media.Scott felt he had to explain the difference between “state” media – a public relations arm of the government of the day - and independent “public” media.
“When governments change, we could change the public broadcasters with them, align them to more positively reflect the government’s agenda, to do the government’s bidding. But you would have to change the ABC Act. And you would have to destroy the ABC as we have known it for eight decades.”“When governments change, we could change the public broadcasters with them, align them to more positively reflect the government’s agenda, to do the government’s bidding. But you would have to change the ABC Act. And you would have to destroy the ABC as we have known it for eight decades.”
That Scott felt the need to say such a thing, that it needed saying, shows how silly, or frightening, this debate has become. It wouldn’t be out of the question for someone to suggest Scott be charged with sedition, or promoting terrorism. This would seem perfectly proportionate because we all know that this is a very, very serious matter. Or not.That Scott felt the need to say such a thing, that it needed saying, shows how silly, or frightening, this debate has become. It wouldn’t be out of the question for someone to suggest Scott be charged with sedition, or promoting terrorism. This would seem perfectly proportionate because we all know that this is a very, very serious matter. Or not.