logo
A campaign of complaints about Antoinette Lattouf put the ABC under pressure – and it buckled

A campaign of complaints about Antoinette Lattouf put the ABC under pressure – and it buckled

The Guardian25-06-2025
I can't remember who said it, but I've never forgotten it.
Someone was once being invited by a journalist to buy into a controversial issue. 'Surely you must have a view!' demanded the journalist.
'Of course I have a view,' came the reply. 'What I don't have is a comment.'
I thought of that exchange again this morning as I considered the judgment in the Antoinette Lattouf case, a case comprehensively lost by the ABC after it was found to have terminated Lattouf from her on-air role at least partly because of her political opinions.
At the centre of the case was a social media post from Lattouf described by the judge as 'ill-advised and inconsiderate'. It shared the findings of a Human Rights Watch report about the use of starvation as a 'weapon of war' by Israel in Gaza.
Sometimes silence is golden, particularly when trying to maintain the impartiality of the ABC on controversial issues. And there is no doubt that, in the wake of the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas and the subsequent Israeli attack on Gaza, social media posts on the topic by ABC presenters are bound to be controversial. My advice, when I was the editorial director of the ABC, was generally that journalists and presenters should let their on-air work speak for them as far as possible.
And so it's understandable that Lattouf's social media activity caused controversy and consternation. It is possible for people of good faith and common sense to differ in their views on whether Lattouf's posts undermined the ABC's impartiality. I happen to think they didn't, and I also happen to think employing her in the first place was not a mistake.
Sign up to get Guardian Australia's weekly media diary as a free newsletter
But ultimately, none of that matters. The simple facts are that her on-air performance for the few days she presented the ABC Sydney morning program was impeccable, and none of her social media posts were ever found to have breached ABC policy.
What did take place, however, was a campaign of complaints from the moment she began in the role, accusing her of being biased against Israel. That campaign was described by the judge in the case as 'an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Ms Lattouf taken off air'.
The key issue was how the ABC behaved in the face of that campaign.
The ABC's first editorial standard is about maintaining the broadcaster's independence and integrity above all else. That means ensuring that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by any outside interests, including political, sectional or commercial ones.
In my years as the editorial director of the ABC, I saw many attempts to pressure or influence the ABC into making decisions. Often, they were decisions about what content the ABC ran, but sometimes they were about who the ABC employed, or who they should stop employing. I should hasten to add that there are many people who would argue that I was part of management decisions that buckled under that pressure. I hope that's not the case, but that's for others to judge.
One thing I did try to do though, without exception, is to urge that decisions should be made calmly, carefully, and after following due process. That usually meant allowing the established complaints handling processes to deal with any allegations of bias, and ensuring that any staff accused of wrongdoing were given ample opportunity to respond, defend themselves and, more often than not, be provided with opportunities to learn and improve rather than being shown the door. Based on today's judgment, that didn't happen in the Lattouf case.
Sign up to Weekly Beast
Amanda Meade's weekly diary on the latest in Australian media, free every Friday
after newsletter promotion
In his findings, Justice Darryl Rangiah said that the campaign of complaints against Lattouf 'caused great consternation' among senior management at the ABC, and once she made her social media post about Gaza there was 'a state of panic'.
The decision to remove her from air was made quickly, despite no breaches of ABC policy being clearly identified, and Lattouf was given no opportunity to defend herself. One of the reasons for the decision being made so quickly was pressure from both the then managing director, David Anderson, and the then chair of the ABC, Ita Buttrose, who wrote in an email about Lattouf that 'we owe her nothing'.
Put simply, the process failed all those involved. It failed the presenter herself, and it failed the test of law. Today's judgment makes that painfully clear.
People often laugh at the ABC's sometimes cumbersome and slow-moving processes when dealing with complaints. And they are often right – they can always be improved and streamlined. But when the ABC, as so often is the case, becomes a pawn in the culture wars and is subjected to intense political or sectional pressure, those calm and considered processes are often all that stand between the ABC and perceptions of caving in to that pressure.
Often, the biggest pressure I perceived inside the ABC was the pressure to make problems go away as soon as possible. At the highest levels of an organisation, the demand for a quick solution can be loud and insistent, all the more so as those calling for a quick fix don't have to administer it themselves.
In those situations, being able to point clearly to a policy that has been found to be breached after a process that is consistent and fair to everyone is the only thing preventing the perception of an organisation in retreat from its values and its people.
The wheels of justice turn slowly, and so most of the key players involved in this sorry affair have now left the ABC. What lessons remain for the ABC itself, and for those who believe in brave and principled public broadcasting?
Only to redouble the efforts in defence of independence, integrity and calmness under pressure. The world these days is filled with those who seek to control, bully and pressure public interest journalism in all its forms. The role of senior managers is to stoutly resist that pressure, and protect journalists from it as much as possible. A quick fix is rarely a good fix, and never the right fix.
Alan Sunderland is a former editorial director of the ABC
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Labour ‘may refuse to use Israeli parts' in UK dome defence system in bid to appease pro-Palestinian backbench MPs
Labour ‘may refuse to use Israeli parts' in UK dome defence system in bid to appease pro-Palestinian backbench MPs

Daily Mail​

time26 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

Labour ‘may refuse to use Israeli parts' in UK dome defence system in bid to appease pro-Palestinian backbench MPs

Labour was accused of planning to exclude hi-tech Israeli anti-missile systems from Britain's proposed 'Iron Dome' defences last night in a bid to appease its pro-Palestinian backbench MPs. Ministers faced claims that they were preparing to drop 'tried and tested' equipment from Tel Aviv-based firm Rafael in favour of a 'more politically correct' alternative. The accusations come as the Government seeks to upgrade and expand its array of Sky Sabre anti-missile units in imitation of Israel 's own 'Iron Dome' defences. Sources told the Mail on Sunday that even though Rafael's control and command system was currently used in all seven existing Sky Sabre units, Ministers were now looking to go instead for a Norwegian-produced rival. The Ministry of Defence responded last night by saying that no such decision had been made. But the fears come amid pressure from pro-Palestinian Labour MPs for the Prime Minister to toughen his policy towards Israeli amid mounting alarm over the scale of the Israeli military action in Gaza and the rising death toll of Palestinians living there. In particular, Sir Keir has faced calls to suspend all arms exports to Israel and to recognise Palestine as a state. Only yesterday, there were reports that French president Emmanuel Macron – who will make a state visit to the UK this week – is urging Sir Keir to hurry up and recognise Palestine. And last night, one security source told the Mail on Sunday: 'Keir Starmer doesn't want to be seen to be close to Israel on defence. 'He's terrified of the Palestinian lobby. 'And he's wary of [Attorney General] Richard Hermer saying they're complicit in helping Israel break international law.' The UK currently has no equivalent of Israel's famed Iron Dome missile defence system. But the Government's Strategic Defence Review promised last month to provide up to £1 billion in new 'homeland air and missile defence' as well as protection against cyber attack. The MoD is also set to upgrade and expand its current seven Sky Sabre medium-range, ground-based mobile air defence systems. However, sources claimed that instead of continuing with the existing Israeli-produced command and control units for Sky Sabre, Ministers were planning to appease their pro-Palestinian backbench MPs by switching to a Norwegian alternative called NASAMs. Last night, defence expert and cross-bench peer Lord Walney said: 'It would be inexcusable if tried-and-tested Israeli components were no longer used simply for politically convenient reasons.' Lord Walney, former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, added: 'Britain needs the best high-tech defence as the world gets more unstable. 'It would be dismal if ministers ditched components from an Israeli company to avoid pressure from the pro-Palestine crowd.' Only last week, non-affiliated peer Lord Austin, the Government's trade envoy to Israel, told the House of Lords how 'the RAF would not be able to get its planes off the ground without Israeli technology' and that 'British soldiers would have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan without Israeli defence equipment.'

How Trump is using the 'Madman Theory' to try to change the world
How Trump is using the 'Madman Theory' to try to change the world

BBC News

timean hour ago

  • BBC News

How Trump is using the 'Madman Theory' to try to change the world

Asked last month whether he was planning to join Israel in attacking Iran, US President Donald Trump said "I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do".He let the world believe he had agreed a two-week pause to allow Iran to resume negotiations. And then he bombed anyway.A pattern is emerging: The most predictable thing about Trump is his unpredictability. He changes his mind. He contradicts himself. He is inconsistent."[Trump] has put together a highly centralised policy-making operation, arguably the most centralised, at least in the area of foreign policy, since Richard Nixon," says Peter Trubowitz, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. "And that makes policy decisions more dependent on Trump's character, his preferences, his temperament." Trump has put this to political use; he has made his own unpredictability a key strategic and political asset. He has elevated unpredictability to the status of a doctrine. And now the personality trait he brought to the White House is driving foreign and security policy. It is changing the shape of the scientists call this the Madman Theory, in which a world leader seeks to persuade his adversary that he is temperamentally capable of anything, to extract concessions. Used successfully it can be a form of coercion and Trump believes it is paying dividends, getting the US's allies where he wants them. But is it an approach that can work against enemies? And could its flaw be that rather than being a sleight of hand designed to fool adversaries, it is in fact based on well established and clearly documented character traits, with the effect that his behaviour becomes easier to predict? Attacks, insults and embraces Trump began his second presidency by embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin and attacking America's allies. He insulted Canada by saying it should become the 51st state of the US. He said he was prepared to consider using military force to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory of America's ally Denmark. And he said the US should retake ownership and control of the Panama 5 of the Nato charter commits each member to come to the defence of all others. Trump threw America's commitment to that into doubt. "I think Article 5 is on life support" declared Ben Wallace, Britain's former defence secretary. Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: "For now the trans-Atlantic alliance is over."A series of leaked text messages revealed the culture of contempt in Trump's White House for European allies. "I fully share your loathing of European freeloaders," US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told his colleagues, adding "PATHETIC". In Munich earlier this year, Trump's Vice-President JD Vance said the US would no longer be the guarantor of European appeared to turn the page on 80 years of trans-Atlantic solidarity. "What Trump has done is raise serious doubts and questions about the credibility of America's international commitments," says Prof Trubowitz."Whatever understanding those countries [in Europe] have with the United States, on security, on economic or other matters, they're now subject to negotiation at a moment's notice."My sense is that most people in Trump's orbit think that unpredictability is a good thing, because it allows Donald Trump to leverage America's clout for maximum gain… "This is one of of his takeaways from negotiating in the world of real estate."Trump's approach paid dividends. Only four months ago, Sir Keir Starmer told the House of Commons that Britain would increase defence and security spending from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5%. Last month, at a Nato summit, that had increased to 5%, a huge increase, now matched by every other member of the Alliance. The predictability of unpredictability Trump is not the first American president to deploy an Unpredictability Doctrine. In 1968, when US President Richard Nixon was trying to end the war in Vietnam, he found the North Vietnamese enemy intractable."At one point Nixon said to his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, 'you ought to tell the North Vietnamese negotiators that Nixon's crazy and you don't know what he's going to do, so you better come to an agreement before things get really crazy'," says Michael Desch, professor of international relations at Notre Dame University. "That's the madman theory." Julie Norman, professor of politics at University College London, agrees that there is now an Unpredictability Doctrine. "It's very hard to know what's coming from day to day," she argues. "And that has always been Trump's approach."Trump successfully harnessed his reputation for volatility to change the trans-Atlantic defence relationship. And apparently to keep Trump on side, some European leaders have flattered and fawned. Last month's Nato summit in The Hague was an exercise in obsequious courtship. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte had earlier sent President Trump (or "Dear Donald") a text message, which Trump leaked. "Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, it was truly extraordinary," he wrote. On the forthcoming announcement that all Nato members had agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP, he continued: "You will achieve something NO president in decades could get done." Anthony Scaramucci, who previously served as Trump's communications director in his first term, said: "Mr Rutte, he's trying to embarrass you, sir. He's literally sitting on Air Force One laughing at you."And this may prove to be the weakness at the heart of Trump's Unpredictability Doctrine: their actions may be based on the idea that Trump craves adulation. Or that he seeks short-term wins, favouring them over long and complicated that is the case and their assumption is correct, then it limits Trump's ability to perform sleights of hand to fool adversaries - rather, he has well established and clearly documented character traits that they have become aware of. The adversaries impervious to charm and threats Then there is the question of whether an Unpredictability Doctrine or the Madman Theory can work on President Volodymyr Zelensky, an ally who was given a dressing down by Trump and Vance in the Oval Office, later agreed to grant the US lucrative rights to exploit Ukrainian mineral resources. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, apparently remains impervious to Trump's charms and threats alike. On Thursday, following a telephone call, Trump said he was "disappointed" that Putin was not ready to end the war against Ukraine. And Iran? Trump promised his base that he would end American involvement in Middle Eastern "forever wars". His decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities was perhaps the most unpredictable policy choice of his second term so far. The question is whether it will have the desired former British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has argued that it will do precisely the opposite: it will make Iran more, not less likely, to seek to acquire nuclear Desch agrees. "I think it's now highly likely that Iran will make the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon," he says. "So I wouldn't be surprised if they lie low and do everything they can to complete the full fuel cycle and conduct a [nuclear] test."I think the lesson of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi is not lost on other dictators facing the US and potential regime change... "So the Iranians will desperately feel the need for the ultimate deterrent and they'll look at Saddam and Gaddafi as the negative examples and Kim Jong Un of North Korea as the positive example." One of the likely scenarios is the consolidation of the Islamic Republic, according to Mohsen Milani, a professor of politics at the University of South Florida and author of Iran's Rise and Rivalry with the US in the Middle East. "In 1980, when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran his aim was the collapse of the Islamic Republic," he says. "The exact opposite happened. "That was the Israeli and American calculation too... That if we get rid of the top guys, Iran is going to surrender quickly or the whole system is going to collapse." A loss of trust in negotiations? Looking ahead, unpredictability may not work on foes, but it is unclear whether the recent shifts it has yielded among allies can be possible, this is a process built largely on impulse. And there may be a worry that the US could be seen as an unreliable broker."People won't want to do business with the US if they don't trust the US in negotiations, if they're not sure the US will stand by them in defence and security issues," argues Prof Norman. "So the isolation that many in the MAGA world seek is, I think, going to backfire."German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for one has said Europe now needs to become operationally independent of the US."The importance of the chancellor's comment is that it's a recognition that US strategic priorities are changing," says Prof Trubowitz. "They're not going to snap back to the way they were before Trump took office. "So yes, Europe is going to have to get more operationally independent." This would require European nations to develop a much bigger European defence industry, to acquire kit and capabilities that currently only the US has, argues Prof Desch. For example, the Europeans have some sophisticated global intelligence capability, he says, but a lot of it is provided by the US."Europe, if it had to go it alone, would also require a significant increase in its independent armaments production capability," he continues. "Manpower would also be an issue. Western Europe would have to look to Poland to see the level of manpower they would need."All of which will take years to build up. So, have the Europeans really been spooked by Trump's unpredictability, into making the most dramatic change to the security architecture of the western world since the end of the Cold War?"It has contributed," says Prof Trubowitz. "But more fundamentally, Trump has uncorked something… Politics in the United States has changed. Priorities have changed. To the MAGA coalition, China is a bigger problem than Russia. That's maybe not true for the Europeans."And according to Prof Milani, Trump is trying to consolidate American power in the global order."It's very unlikely that he's going to change the order that was established after World War Two. He wants to consolidate America's position in that order because China is challenging America's position in that order."But this all means that the defence and security imperatives faced by the US and Europe are European allies may be satisfied that through flattery and real policy shifts, they have kept Trump broadly onside; he did, after all, reaffirm his commitment to Article 5 at the most recent Nato summit. But the unpredictability means this cannot be guaranteed - and they have seemed to accept that they can no longer complacently rely on the US to honour its historic commitment to their in that sense, even if the unpredictability doctrine comes from a combination of conscious choice and Trump's very real character traits, it is working, on some at image credit: Getty Images BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store