logo
Antoinette Lattouf has won $70,000, but her case has cost the ABC so much more

Antoinette Lattouf has won $70,000, but her case has cost the ABC so much more

The Age4 days ago

At the heart of the issue was whether Lattouf was sacked at all (yes, according to the FWC and Rangiah), whether she was sacked for holding and/or expressing political views (yes, says Rangiah), and whether her race (Lebanese Christian) played a part (no, Rangiah found).
The ABC did itself no favours in attempting to argue that racism could not have been a factor in its treatment of Lattouf because she had failed to prove the very existence of a Middle-Eastern or Arab race. It later withdrew that argument after a fierce public backlash.
Complaints about Lattouf, who has been an outspoken critic of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, began flooding into the ABC immediately after she finished her first shift, though nothing she had said on air was deemed controversial.
It soon became clear, Rangiah wrote, 'that the complaints were an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists'. But Buttrose insisted on sharing them with Anderson and Oliver-Taylor nonetheless.
Three days into her five-day hosting stint, management became aware of a post shared on Instagram by Lattouf they believed constituted a breach of the ABC's social media policy.
Rangiah found in his 177-page judgment that following this discovery, 'the consternation of senior managers of the ABC turned into what can be described as a state of panic'.
Within the hour, Rangiah said, 'a decision was made that Ms Lattouf would be taken off air. The policies she was alleged to have breached were not identified, nor was she given any opportunity to defend herself against the allegations.'
Loading
The judge found pressure from pro-Israeli activists and an imminent story in The Australia n stoked that sense of panic.
He also found Anderson had misconstrued a 'sarcastic' social media post as expressing support for a Hamas campaign of 'ethnic cleansing' (it did not).
'While Mr Anderson was mistaken in his interpretation of the post, it does demonstrate that he attributed to Ms Lattouf hateful anti-Semitic opinions,' Rangiah wrote.
The decision to terminate Lattouf's engagement at the ABC was made by Oliver-Taylor alone, though in response to concerns shared at the top of the organisation.
'I find that Mr Oliver-Taylor's reasons for his decision included his desire to mitigate further complaints about the ABC employing someone attributed with holding a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza,' said Rangiah.
Holding or expressing a political opinion is not, Rangiah found, a valid reason for terminating someone's employment, even at the national broadcaster.
Rangiah found 'protection for employees … against termination of employment for reasons including 'political opinion' encompasses not only the holding of a political opinion but also the expression of a political opinion'.
The ramifications of all this for the ABC and other media organisations are potentially profound.
Loading
In his statement to staff following Wednesday's ruling, Marks stressed 'the fundamental obligations the ABC and its employees have to be independent and impartial in our work to ensure we continue to earn the trust of all Australians. Those obligations don't change as a result of this decision.'
But he also acknowledged that there was confusion about the organisation's guidelines around use of social media and promised 'we will talk more about this in coming weeks'.
It has arguably never been more important that Australians should be able to trust in the national broadcaster to report fairly and accurately without caving to external pressure.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's problems not going away after Iran war
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's problems not going away after Iran war

ABC News

timean hour ago

  • ABC News

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's problems not going away after Iran war

Deep in the throes of battle with Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a rare public appearance at a falafel stand near a missile impact site just south of Tel Aviv. It's something seldom seen outside of election campaigns. Supporters lined the streets to get a glimpse of their leader, and as he appeared, they started chanting: "Bibi; King of Israel." It stood in stark contrast to the months of public vitriol Netanyahu copped from millions of Israeli citizens, who'd been frustrated with the country's lingering war in Gaza and the fact 50 hostages remained there. For a moment, it appeared the PM's popularity was about to surge. As soon as Israel launched its air strikes on Iran, there was overwhelming support for the attack amongst Jewish Israelis and bipartisan backing across the political divide. A survey by the Israel Democracy Institute found 82 per cent of Jewish Israelis supported the attack on Iran. On the streets, Israelis were quick to explain why they backed the attack. They highlighted the Iranian regime's stated desire to destroy Israel, and how they viewed the strikes as a turning point in their country's history. There was also a sense that Israel was taking on Iran on behalf of the world — that they were doing something their allies could not, or would not, do. "This is a time of miracles and we will win," one Israeli told me. Another was more direct, saying: "We will f*** the bastards and, after that, no-one will think about starting even a small thing with Israel." During the war with Iran, Netanyahu has been on the optics front line, making several appearances at missile impact sites in Tel Aviv and at a hospital struck in the country's south, reiterating his message that launching the attack has been for Israel's greater good. Few people from the political echelon, and elsewhere around the country, spoke out against him. And now the war is over, Israelis I've spoken with still seem to believe the short-lived conflict was necessary, and they achieved massive successes in cutting down a regime that'd presented an existential threat for decades. Among all the encouragement and praise for the war amongst the Israeli public, you could be forgiven for thinking the same wave of support would flow through to "King Bibi". But Israeli politics is rarely that simple. Instead, polling released during and after the war suggests the country's left and right-wing voter base hasn't really shifted in its views. Netanyahu's Likud Party has received a modest bump, but at the expense of other groups within his ruling coalition. It means, if an election were held in Israel today, it's likely Mr Netanyahu would struggle to form government, which would end his reign. Netanyahu might be Israel's longest-serving leader in history, but his coalition is tenuous — held together by six separate political parties, some of which routinely threaten to pull the pin on their support if they don't agree with his policies, including how to end the war in Gaza. So why hasn't the perceived success of the Iranian attack extended as praise for the prime minister behind it? The Netanyahu camp could have believed Operation Rising Lion — as it was officially named — would erase painful and controversial memories for Israelis, including the security failures of October 7 and the ongoing war in Gaza, where 50 hostages remain held captive, including at least 20 known to be alive. While Netanyahu's assault on Iran is considered locally impressive, and the victories made remarkable, the prime minister is facing a major problem. On Saturday night, protesters were back on the streets in Tel Aviv, gathering in anger over what they described as a "festering wound" for Netanyahu. They're talking about the fact there's no ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza war. That ongoing campaign, in which it is estimated by Gazan health authorities that more than 50,000 Palestinians in the besieged territory have been killed, is becoming increasingly unpopular in Israel, particularly because of the plight of the hostages — some of whom are alive, some of whom are not. Polling released in March by Israel's popular Channel 12 found 69 per cent of Israelis supported ending the Gaza war in return for an agreement which saw all hostages released. Even among voters of Netanyahu's right-wing coalition, 54 per cent backed that equation. As one Israeli put it to me: "Bibi might have thought another war would distract us from Gaza, but we haven't forgotten the hostages." Until that wound is closed, it's likely Netanyahu's approval, and chances of re-election next year, will continue to dissolve.

Social media ban must look to future teen trends
Social media ban must look to future teen trends

Sydney Morning Herald

time2 hours ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

Social media ban must look to future teen trends

The federal government plans to introduce its social media ban for under-16s by December. Announced to mixed reviews last year – parent groups were ecstatic, while mental health organisations have warned about the risk of isolating vulnerable teens and tech commentators questioned the data security trade-offs – the ban would eventually require all Australians to complete an age verification process to use Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and other social media apps. The exact parameters of the ban remain to be seen, and will need to pass parliament, but last week, the Herald reported eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant had advised the government to not restrict its new rules to specific social media platforms. Inman Grant is specifically seeking to include video platform YouTube in the ban, after it previously received an exemption due to its 'significant educational purpose'. According to the eSafety Commission's research, four in 10 young teenagers have been exposed to harmful content, such as eating disorder videos, misogynistic or hateful material, or violent fight videos, while watching YouTube. As the Albanese government finalises the details of its attempt to restrict social media on a national scale, the Sun-Herald believes it is extremely prudent to not include a discrete list of platforms the rules cover. Indeed, as Emily Kowal reports in today's Sun-Herald, there are emerging forms of online engagement driven by artificial intelligence, for which regulation should also be considered. Companion chatbots such as Replika and allow users to converse, call and exchange photos and videos with an AI 'friend'. The user can style this friend as their favourite character from a movie, a celebrity, or someone they know in real life. Loading It is not hard to see why child safety experts are concerned. The eSafety Commissioner said she had received reports of children as young as 10 spending hours on chatbots, which AI researchers say learn from their user, evolving to respond in ways to keep them talking for longer. Some bots are designed to be mean, others tend towards pornographic or other forms of conversation inappropriate for children. All collect information about their user, and few have any real mechanism to validate their user's age.

Social media ban must look to future teen trends
Social media ban must look to future teen trends

The Age

time2 hours ago

  • The Age

Social media ban must look to future teen trends

The federal government plans to introduce its social media ban for under-16s by December. Announced to mixed reviews last year – parent groups were ecstatic, while mental health organisations have warned about the risk of isolating vulnerable teens and tech commentators questioned the data security trade-offs – the ban would eventually require all Australians to complete an age verification process to use Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and other social media apps. The exact parameters of the ban remain to be seen, and will need to pass parliament, but last week, the Herald reported eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant had advised the government to not restrict its new rules to specific social media platforms. Inman Grant is specifically seeking to include video platform YouTube in the ban, after it previously received an exemption due to its 'significant educational purpose'. According to the eSafety Commission's research, four in 10 young teenagers have been exposed to harmful content, such as eating disorder videos, misogynistic or hateful material, or violent fight videos, while watching YouTube. As the Albanese government finalises the details of its attempt to restrict social media on a national scale, the Sun-Herald believes it is extremely prudent to not include a discrete list of platforms the rules cover. Indeed, as Emily Kowal reports in today's Sun-Herald, there are emerging forms of online engagement driven by artificial intelligence, for which regulation should also be considered. Companion chatbots such as Replika and allow users to converse, call and exchange photos and videos with an AI 'friend'. The user can style this friend as their favourite character from a movie, a celebrity, or someone they know in real life. Loading It is not hard to see why child safety experts are concerned. The eSafety Commissioner said she had received reports of children as young as 10 spending hours on chatbots, which AI researchers say learn from their user, evolving to respond in ways to keep them talking for longer. Some bots are designed to be mean, others tend towards pornographic or other forms of conversation inappropriate for children. All collect information about their user, and few have any real mechanism to validate their user's age.

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