Strife at ABC but don't blame the editorial policies
Much has been written about the ABC’s treatment of Antoinette Lattouf. Opinions vary from those who think it was right for Lattouf to be fired (such as Lawyers for Israel) to those who – like the journalists who signed the open letter in support of ‘ethical reporting’ on Israel and Palestine – think her position on Gaza should be heard more widely on the ABC. As Lattouf’s advocacy was well known, it seems odd that she was hired as the presenter of the ABC’s Sydney radio morning program. But it seems just as odd that she was fired for her social media re-post with two days left to run on her contract. Here, I want to look at the policy settings in place at the ABC to ask: is there something wrong with the editorial rules?
First, a little background. Like the SBS sports reporter Stuart McIntyre, Lattouf claims that she was terminated because of her political opinions (among other things). The offending conduct appears to be her re-posting of a Human Rights Watch (HRW) post which presented a copy of the HRW report along with the comment, 'HRW reporting starvation as tool of war'. The ABC says she failed to comply with a direction not to post to social media anything controversial. (The ABC also argues that it did not in fact ‘terminate’ her because it paid her out for the remaining days of the contract.) Presumably, the ABC will need to establish that the instruction did relate to Lattouff’s obligations under her contract, and the response to her conduct – termination – was proportionate. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on the weekend, Giuseppe Carabetta from the UTS Business School noted how in cases of an employee breaching a workplace policy, courts have tended to favour employers’ arguments that the person was terminated for that reason and not for an expression of political opinion. But let’s look beyond that to the expectations that are placed on ABC presenters.
The ABC has a suite of policies and rules that govern content generated by 'workers', which covers employees, contractors and others. At the apex is a code of practice required under the ABC Act. The code only applies to broadcast content, but it’s supplemented by extensive policies and guidelines that also apply to the ABC’s own digital content; for example, the detailed editorial policy on Impartiality.
This is where the greyness sets in. Part of the debate around Lattouf’s dismissal has been whether these policies applied to her. Some might say the policy on impartiality and others like it should not apply because the program was a morning show on local radio – the kind of program that is sometimes presented by a comedian. Others might say those policies should apply if a presenter – like Lattouf – is a journalist. But neither of these aspects determines the application of the impartiality policy; the rules apply to news and current affairs content. If, on any given day, the morning program on Radio Sydney shifts from lifestyle content to current affairs, the impartiality rule applies to that current affairs content.
This is the first aspect of editorial policy raised by the Lattouf matter and it seems to me the ABC has the right setting. The policy avoids the rigidity that would set in if the impartiality rule applied to all content all of the time, and it helps to protect the independence and integrity of the national broadcaster when they count most.
That brings us to the second aspect. Lattouf was fired for a social media post, not what she said on air. Does – and should – that make a difference? As a general proposition, the editorial policies don’t apply to an ABC worker’s personal social media account; however, this content must conform with the Personal Use of Social Media Guidelines. These guidelines prescribe: 'do not damage the ABC’s reputation for impartiality and independence'; 'do not undermine your effectiveness at work'; and 'do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute.' And even though the full set of editorial policies doesn’t apply to an employee’s personal social media account, two of the policies – impartiality and independence and integrity – are 'nonetheless relevant'. The reason for this is that, 'For many Workers, remaining impartial in the public eye is crucial to maintaining effectiveness in their ABC roles.' Furthermore, the bar is raised again in the case of a 'high risk worker' such as a program presenter or journalist, especially those who are more senior or who have a high profile. For them, there is the obligation to 'treat personal content with the same care as if being published or distributed on an ABC platform' and 'avoid engaging in advocacy on matters of contention.'
Is this second aspect of the ABC’s editorial policies – the extension to a personal social media account – reasonable? Again, I think it is, at least for a public service broadcaster. As the policy itself explains, a presenter’s post to their own social media account, 'has the potential to affect the perception of the ABC’s independence, impartiality and integrity'.
This assessment of the policy settings themselves says nothing about the ways they have been applied in this case. Whatever the merits of the ABC’s actions, and of Lattouf’s case for unfair termination, there is a gulf between the principles of editorial integrity embedded in the ABC’s policies and popular understandings of how and when they apply. Opinions will differ on the correctness of those policies and on questions such as: does it make a difference if the presenter is a journalist, a comedian or an activist? On this point, we’d suggest it might be time for the ABC to conduct more formal consultation in an attempt to gauge contemporary community expectations.
Derek Wilding, CMT Co-Director
This is from our Centre for Media Transition newsletter: Lattouf dispute, objectivity and the AI race - Issue 1/2024. Read it here.
