looks like things don't change. I wonder when our ABC will employ another Lebo, God knows how she slipped through,
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-29/antoinette-lattouf-sacking-exposed-power-of-lobbying-on-media/105463398Last weekend, I wrote a piece about the news-gathering model and media literacy.
It mentioned how governments, militaries, and lobby groups try to stop the media telling stories, and it wondered if news audiences would like major media outlets to talk about it more:
"They might be shocked to learn about the orchestrated bullying that goes on, which is designed to discourage editors and journalists from reporting on certain topics and framing stories in certain ways, even speaking to certain people," the piece said.
"Would it improve media literacy if the media wrote about these issues openly and regularly?"
Then, three days later, we heard relevant news.
On Wednesday, the Federal Court ruled that the ABC had unlawfully sacked journalist Antoinette Lattouf, in December 2023, for reasons including that she held political opinions opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
Justice Darryl Rangiah found external pressure from "pro-Israel lobbyists" had played a role in the ABC's decision.
Ms Lattouf had been employed by the ABC on a small five-day contract, as a fill-in summer radio host.
But Justice Rangiah found that soon after Ms Lattouf presented her first program that summer, the ABC began to receive complaints from members of the public.
"The complaints asserted she had expressed antisemitic views, lacked impartiality and was unsuitable to present any program for the ABC," he wrote.
"It became clear that the complaints were an orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Ms Lattouf taken off air."
For journalism students, it's an important case study. Many of you would have discussed it in class last week.
But everyone should read Justice Rangiah's judgement.
It details what went on behind the scenes at the ABC when the email campaign against Ms Lattouf began, and how it contributed to a "state of panic" among some senior ABC managers (many of whom have since left the organisation).
It also showed how such pressure campaigns work.
Not only had pro-Israel lobbyists sent dozens of emails to the ABC calling for Ms Lattouf to be taken off air, but their complaints found their way to News Corp's The Australian newspaper, which then told the ABC it was planning to report on the fact that the ABC had received complaints (which fed the growing panic inside the ABC).
That's how the game is played.
The public isn't responsible for declining trust in the media
After the Federal Court's ruling was published on Wednesday, the ABC's new managing director, Hugh Marks, said the ABC had let down its staff and audiences.
"Any undue influence or pressure on ABC management or any of its employees must always be guarded against," he said.
A large number of articles were also written about the court's ruling.
Alan Sunderland, a former editorial director of the ABC, said the public broadcaster had lessons to learn from the saga.
"The world these days is filled with those who seek to control, bully and pressure public interest journalism in all its forms," he wrote.
...
...Critical analyses of the media
But let's wrap things up.
It's naive to think "the media" is always and everywhere obsessed with "the truth." There are plenty of players in the media that are motivated by other things.
But consider the editors and journalists that really do try to tell the truth.
As we discussed last week, there's a global multi-billion-dollar industry dedicated to capturing, controlling, and confusing the "trusted stories" the media tells every day:
Different governments, militaries, multi-nationals, and lobby groups are always trying it on.
The ABC was involved in a different controversy six years ago when concerns were raised internally about Adani's apparent ability to squash an ABC radio story about the economics of Adani's Carmichael mine.
Readers say once they start noticing things like that about the media, it can damage their trust in the media's stories.
If you spend any time on social media these days, you may have also noticed how millions of people are now teaching each other about the subtle ways in which media outlets use language and imagery to privilege certain perspectives and diminish others in their daily news reports.
The type of critical media analyses you'll get in every journalism and communications degree at university has jumped out of the academy and onto peoples' phones.
For example, consider the headlines below and see if you can spot the differences in language:
What subtle differences in language do you notice? (Source: Centre for Media Monitoring, "BBC on Gaza-Israel: One story, double standards, 2023-24," June 2025 )
Why is the language in the first headline so passive and vague? Why is the language in the second headline active and precise?
Modern audiences are regularly engaging in that kind of media "decoding" in private now, while they're doom-scrolling, so it presents an opportunity for media outlets to start having deeper conversations with their audiences about the way things work, if they choose to.
Those conversations could be uncomfortable for some. But they may lead to more truthful storytelling.
