Quadrant went too far, but ABC in jihad denialism

Q&A host Tony Jones (left) with the Guardian's Mona Chalabi and Russian journalist Mikhail Zygar on this week's program.

One of the ABC’s greatest failings — more worrisome even than its climate alarmism or open borders activism — is its constant effort to talk down the threat of Islamist extremism.

Across all its platforms the national broadcaster is wont to echo the jihad denialism of the green left — a naive social media-driven idealism embodied in the “I’ll ride with you” hashtag its journalists once promoted — that not only seeks to minimise the risks of terrorism but will often decry those who promote a firm response as running a xenophobic or, at least, political agenda.

This attitude pollutes our public debate, stifling political action and perpetuating the grievances of extremists that tend to paint murderous acts as responses to Western foreign policy, social isolation or so-called Islamophobia.

.@chriskkenny: We need to have a sensible debate about the threat of radicalisation. MORE https://t.co/YJYZg3Xfqx pic.twitter.com/8r1eu2frQ7

— Sky News Australia (@SkyNewsAust) May 23, 2017

If you don’t think the influence of the public broadcaster on this national debate is an important issue, then consider what unfolded at the Martin Place cafe siege, the details of which have been relayed in today’s coroner’s findings. Authorities were reluctant to believe that a man convicted of spreading Islamist extremist hate messages and who was facing charges of sexual assault and accessory to murder could be acting as a terrorist. Despite the fact he was holding hostages at gunpoint and had no stated aim other than to declare he was acting under the flag of Islamic State, police believed they could negotiate a resolution.

Yet the police did launch an operation during the siege aimed at preventing anti-Muslim street crimes in response to the siege. They never happened, of course, and if there has ever been a more worrying misdirection of policing priorities I am yet to learn about it.

Pointing out the jihad denialism on the ABC is an important part of the national debate. The ABC was at it again on Monday night, with the guests and host of Q&A once more talking down the threat and, earlier, MediaWatch criticising a Muslim leader not for promoting extremism but for opposing it. They were not to know this was only hours before the sickening Manchester Arena bombing; but they should have known better. They have a responsibility to know better.

What do you think has the largest probability to end the greatest story, that we know of, so far? @LKrauss1 @MonaChalabi & #QandA panel pic.twitter.com/vMAjlrKxW4

— ABC Q&A (@QandA) May 22, 2017

So the argument, and indeed the anger, evident in a comment piece published yesterday by Quadrant online editor Roger Franklin was understandable. But he went way too far — he crossed a line in public debate that should never be crossed and can never be condoned.

Franklin dared to wish such violence upon the ABC — apparently to teach them a lesson — and in doing so he not only destroyed his own argument but diminished public debate in this nation.

Violence is unacceptable; that is the point of opposing Islamist extremism, we object to indiscriminate violence to promote a cause. So it is ethically wrong to wish it upon others with the exception of the terrorists themselves.

And in this age of violence and security threats it is simply irresponsible to make malevolent suggestions.

Yes, the ABC once celebrated a shoe being thrown at a prime minister; yes it has deliberately cultivated known extremist sympathisers to make political points on live television; and yes, it consistently acts against the national interest on these issues. But to highlight these points you have to take the higher moral ground, not stoop to even more egregious levels.