Joe Hildebrand: ABC and Lattouf both engaged in some pretty atomic-level silliness

Despite having much sympathy for the ABC and Antoinette Lattouf, both engaged in some pretty atomic-level silliness long before the final atom was split by this week’s judgment, writes Joe Hildebrand.

The case of Antoinette Lattouf v the ABC is perhaps the greatest lightning rod in the endless culture wars swirling around in Australia today.

It is a story that is an almost supernatural confluence of every white-hot cultural conflict between the activist left and right: Israel v Palestine, workers v bosses, free speech v public responsibility, the ABC v mainstream media, identity politics v so-called racism.

Such an explosive combination of combustible elements is rarely seen outside an Iranian uranium enrichment facility.

Lattouf can, of course, rightly claim victory in the courts, and the ABC has retreated to lick its wounds, but the truth is that both parties and their confused cheerleaders are still neck-deep in a cripplingly questionable ideological quagmire.

I have much sympathy for both the ABC and Lattouf, having worked for the former and with the latter.

Journalist Antoinette Lattouf leaves the Supreme Court after winning her case against the ABC. Lattouf claimed she was unlawfully dismissed from the national broadcaster after she shared a social media post regarding the Gaza War. Picture: NewsWire/Nikki Short

But both engaged in some pretty atomic-level silliness long before the final atom was split by this week’s judgment.

Few readers will be unfamiliar with the matter, but basically Lattouf, a holiday fill-in host for a week on ABC morning radio, reposted a tweet about alleged Israeli atrocities in Gaza and was told not to come back for the remainder of her shifts after objections from then-chairwoman Ita Buttrose.

But the Federal Court this week ruled that Lattouf had been unfairly dismissed because she had expressed a political opinion – as opposed to, say, a culinary opinion, such as that ketchup and tomato sauce are as bad as each other.

And here we really get into the weeds. ABC journos and presenters are supposed to be impartial. But what does that even mean?

At a base level, it means they are supposed to be impartial in their duties working for the national broadcaster. But in the age of social media, what does that mean either?

There was never a suggestion that Lattouf had been biased on air during her Whitlam-esque three-day flame-out. But she had posted a tweet during this time that did indeed seem to favour one side over another in the interminable Israel v Palestine conflict. But then Lattouf would say that she had merely reposted a tweet from a human rights organisation stating a fact about the conflict.

Palestinians carry humanitarian aid packages in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip. And here lands with a thud the first rule about politics: Both sides think they are simply stating the facts. Picture: AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana

And here lands with a thud the first rule about politics, and the more radical the politics the more indisputable the rule: Both sides think they are simply stating the facts. It is always the other side that is the purveyor of lies, propaganda and fake news.

This is the real inconvenient truth: In a world where there are endless sources of information, misinformation and disinformation, everyone thinks they are simply speaking the truth.

We have created a universe in which political crusaders do not see themselves as “right” or “left” but simply right; everyone else is wrong.

Vaccines save lives or vaccines kill; Trump is evil or Trump is the messiah; Israel equals genocide or Palestine equals terrorism. Anyone who believes any of these statements doesn’t think it is a matter of opinion, they think it is an indisputable fact.

But the real twist is that the court found Lattouf had not been unjustly fired for merely speaking the truth but for expressing a “political opinion” – the one thing ABC employees are not supposed to do.

And so suddenly this battle went from “I have done nothing wrong” to “I have been crucified for bravely standing up for what I believe in”.

So let’s pan out from this primordial mess of principles. The less haughty reality is that Lattouf was a perfect fit for the ABC and its audience: Highbrow, progressive and extremely pro-Palestine.

And this is where I feel sorry for Aunty. It has a legal obligation to be a mainstream broadcaster but is populated by so many inner city hipsters and pummelled by so many online Trots, that it is constantly boxed into the course-correction of a Hindenburg Zeppelin.

Turn to the left and it loses audiences – RIP Q&A; turn to the centre and it gets monstered by the Sunday morning Soviet sympathisers who think the revolution will be on Insiders.

Thus it hires trendy lefties like Lattouf but then warns them to shut up on Twitter so they can pretend they’re impartial. It is a masquerade that fools few and pleases fewer.

How’s this for an alternative approach: Hire people who are genuinely impartial – or at least a genuinely broad representation of mainstream Australia – and then let them say whatever they want.

Originally published as Joe Hildebrand: ABC and Lattouf both engaged in some pretty atomic-level silliness