From the article below - "We took advice from Australia's intelligence authorities on the matter, and redacted sensitive operational information which may have compromised national security."
So if "Australia's intelligence authorities" advised on what could or couldn't be released, don't you consider that an appropriate procedure for the ABC to follow before releasing the story?
Without fear or favour: why we broke the spy story
By Kate Torney
The ABC projects Australian democracy to the world not by acting as a mouthpiece for government, but by reporting the news as it is with rigour and independence.
We did not publish everything we had access to. We took advice from Australia's intelligence authorities on the matter, and redacted sensitive operational information which may have compromised national security. What was left was the central revelation which we considered then and consider now to be a matter of legitimate public debate.
It has been suggested that it would have been fine for any other media outlet to run the story, but not the ABC.
So now, at last, the story has become a legitimate one, but apparently not for the ABC.
This is the strangest argument of all. The ABC's reputation as a trusted, independent source of news and information is one of the reasons the ABC was awarded the Australia Network contract to begin with. Are our critics suggesting that news produced for Australia Network should only contain positive stories about Australia? Is the suggestion that we should filter news to paint only the rosiest of pictures for our international neighbours?
The editorial independence of the ABC's news service is fundamental and non-negotiable, whether heard in Australia or internationally.
