Speaker 1: From the Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
Speaker 1: It's Thursday, June twenty sixth, twenty twenty five. The ABC
Speaker 1: sacked casual presenter Antoinette Latouf for her views on the
Speaker 1: Israel Garza war and must pay her at least seventy
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. That's the finding of Federal Court Judge Darryl Rangia,
Speaker 1: in what Latouf is claiming as a victory for free speech.
Speaker 1: ABC boss Hu Marx has apologized to Latouf today how
Speaker 1: the National broadcaster got here.
Speaker 2: I was punished for thanclar pop.
Speaker 1: That's Antoinette Latouf, a media figure who sued and defeated
Speaker 1: the ABC in the Federal Court of Australia. Latouf has
Speaker 1: worked at multiple media outlets over a couple of decades
Speaker 1: in the business, including writing columns and presenting on TV
Speaker 1: and radio, and she's also got a lively social media
Speaker 1: presence where she posts about issues like diversity in the media,
Speaker 1: racism and feminism. After her master's attack on Israel in
Speaker 1: October twenty twenty three, Latouf began posting passionately about Israel
Speaker 1: and Gaza.
Speaker 2: You can and should condemn both Humas and Israel's government
Speaker 2: both are extremists.
Speaker 1: Can These are posts on TikTok from October and November
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three before her December shifts on ABC Sydney
Speaker 1: local radio.
Speaker 2: You can and should know it's a war crime to
Speaker 2: cut off food, water and electricity to women, babies, and
Speaker 2: the elderly. Number two pretend to be hearing impaired when
Speaker 2: all major human rights organizations speak, allow me to demonstrate apartheid,
Speaker 2: A party for five that sounds like they're having fun
Speaker 2: in Gaza, genocide tenna side.
Speaker 1: Oh that's a new sport.
Speaker 3: Is it.
Speaker 1: In November twenty twenty three, Latouf explained on TikTok why
Speaker 1: he'd signed a petition calling on journalists to do better.
Speaker 2: For me as an independent and freelance journalist and nobody
Speaker 2: can fire me.
Speaker 1: She said she was shocked that one media organization had
Speaker 1: told journalists who'd signed the petition they couldn't report on
Speaker 1: the war directly.
Speaker 2: If they don't want to work with me because I
Speaker 2: have voiced concerns about all of those things, then honestly
Speaker 2: fuck them.
Speaker 1: In December twenty twenty three, Latouf, whom the ABC says
Speaker 1: had been identified as part of their bid to increase
Speaker 1: the diversity of on air talent, began a five day
Speaker 1: casual stint on ABC Radio Sydney, hosting the morning's program
Speaker 1: while the regular host was away. Latouf said she understood
Speaker 1: the assignment Bright and Breezy cats and Christmas Puddings. Three
Speaker 1: days into the gig, Latouf posted this on Instagram. We've
Speaker 1: used a voice actor.
Speaker 2: Human Rights Watch reporting starvation as a tool of war.
Speaker 1: After that post, Latouf was told she wouldn't need to
Speaker 1: show up for the final two days of the stint.
Speaker 1: Although she was paid, she was asked to leave the
Speaker 1: ABC's ultimo premises. She took legal action for unfair dismissal.
Speaker 1: Attempts at mediation failed and the matter wound up in
Speaker 1: the Federal Court. On Wednesday, Justice Darryl Rangier found in
Speaker 1: Latouf's favor. This is the judge's voice from his decision.
Speaker 4: The respondent, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, contravened Section seven hundred
Speaker 4: and seventy two Subsection one of the Fair Work Act
Speaker 4: two thousand and nine by terminating the employment of the
Speaker 4: applicant Antoinette Latouf for reasons including that she held a
Speaker 4: political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
Speaker 1: Rangia also found the ABC contravene Section fifty of the
Speaker 1: Fair Work Act by taking her off air, and the
Speaker 1: ABC Enterprise Agreement because it didn't follow its own disciplinary
Speaker 1: procedure by allowing Latouf to defend herself on the court steps.
Speaker 1: After Rangia's judgment, Latoof doubled down on the allegations about Israel.
Speaker 2: It is now June twenty twenty five and Palestinian children
Speaker 2: are still being staffed. Deliberately starving and killing children is a.
Speaker 3: War crime today.
Speaker 2: The plought is about that. Punishing someone sharing facts about
Speaker 2: these war crimes.
Speaker 5: Is also le.
Speaker 4: O whill order that the ABC pay is latouf compensation
Speaker 4: of seventy thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: That seventy thousand was for emotional distress. Then it's been
Speaker 1: clear from Latouf's posts she is upset. My pain and
Speaker 1: my loss and my.
Speaker 2: This is nothing compared to those being killed and staffed,
Speaker 2: that dispossessed and dehumanized and ignored.
Speaker 4: I'm one day at a time.
Speaker 1: The court will come back at a later point to
Speaker 1: determine a penalty for the ABC.
Speaker 6: It's been a damaging episode because I suppose it stripped
Speaker 6: back the curtain to show the panic, the lack of
Speaker 6: leadership at the top, and the confusion within the ABC
Speaker 6: about what constitutes acceptable editorial conduct.
Speaker 1: James Madden is The Australian's Media editor.
Speaker 6: From start to finish, the whole issue has been just
Speaker 6: a sorry saga for everyone, possibly including Antoinette latof. I
Speaker 6: don't think she's covered herself in glory either.
Speaker 1: Does it seem to you as though anyone at the
Speaker 1: ABC had read her social media content before they hired it.
Speaker 6: Well, if they had, they hadn't read it closely enough,
Speaker 6: or perhaps they were simply banking on her falling into line.
Speaker 6: She doesn't hide her political views on her social media platforms,
Speaker 6: but it's clear that her impartiality on this issue and
Speaker 6: she's entitled to her opinion, but her impartiality on this
Speaker 6: issue doesn't sit comfortably with the ABC's charter.
Speaker 1: Given that she had been so loud and proud about
Speaker 1: her views about Israel, is it fair enough for her
Speaker 1: to be fairly outraged that the ABC dumped her after
Speaker 1: what she thought was a fairly inconsequential post.
Speaker 6: I think she's entitled to feel somewhat aggrieved by the
Speaker 6: fact that she was let go three shifts into a
Speaker 6: five shift contract because the evidence shows she was given
Speaker 6: very confusing directions by the ABC in management as to
Speaker 6: what was acceptable and what was not. That said, she
Speaker 6: should have understood that those kind of posts were best
Speaker 6: left to when she wasn't employed by the ABC.
Speaker 1: Perhaths. Yeah, the ABC seems to have assumed that she
Speaker 1: could read between the lines and that it would be
Speaker 1: obvious that if you were hired to present the morning
Speaker 1: show and talk about, as she said, Christmas puddings and cats,
Speaker 1: that you would not be posting any content about the
Speaker 1: war in Gaza, she felt. I would think it suggests
Speaker 1: that she was being hired as the whole Antoinette Latouf,
Speaker 1: not just a presenter. Is that fair enough? In the
Speaker 1: Instagram age where she spent a lot of time creating
Speaker 1: this image of herself, I.
Speaker 6: Don't think it is fair enough. I think Antoinette Latouf
Speaker 6: is a smart woman, has been around media organizations her
Speaker 6: whole professional life. She would have clearly understood what the
Speaker 6: ABC is all about. Now, whether you agree with her
Speaker 6: opinion or not is not the point at all. The
Speaker 6: fact is she took a political position on a sensitive
Speaker 6: issue and that is not acceptable at the ABC full stop.
Speaker 1: It would be hard to find an employer in Australia now,
Speaker 1: particularly in the media, which doesn't have a pretty strict
Speaker 1: social media policy, that you're not allowed to post things
Speaker 1: that might bring the organization into disrepute. Now, that's pretty
Speaker 1: vague and it's open to interpretation. I think the assumption
Speaker 1: has always been that the favor would be on the
Speaker 1: side of the employer and basically, I don't like something
Speaker 1: you're posting, your employment might be at risk. How do
Speaker 1: you think this judgment changes our perception of that what
Speaker 1: is allowed now?
Speaker 6: It's a thorny issue and this issue at the ABC
Speaker 6: has been a massive headache for five, six, seven, eight
Speaker 6: years now because for all the edicts that ABC management
Speaker 6: have put about, journalists have pretty much ignored it. There's
Speaker 6: dozens and dozens of examples whereby if they haven't been sanctioned,
Speaker 6: they've been spoken to journalists about it, but nothing really
Speaker 6: seems to happen. I think a point that has to
Speaker 6: be remembered here is the ABC is the public broadcaster
Speaker 6: and with that come certain obligations, one of which, whether
Speaker 6: you like it or not, is to be politically impartial
Speaker 6: on all political issues. That is non negotiable. It seems
Speaker 6: that many journalists within the ABC aren't willing to fall
Speaker 6: into line on that, and either through a desire to
Speaker 6: virtual signal online or boost their own personal brand, they
Speaker 6: tend to draw outside the lines on social media, and
Speaker 6: the ABC hasn't come to groups with.
Speaker 1: That coming up? What about item Buttros's role in the
Speaker 1: whole affair. During the hearing, the court heard in evidence
Speaker 1: from then managing director David Anderson that chair Ida Buttros
Speaker 1: was absolutely furious that Latouf had been hired at all.
Speaker 1: Texts between Anderson and Buttros were tended. We've used voice
Speaker 1: actors to bring them to life.
Speaker 3: Antoninette will finish up on Friday. It's a managed exit.
Speaker 3: Given the situation, I can explain more tomorrow. Plan to
Speaker 3: respond to all those who have emailed on Friday afternoon.
Speaker 5: Why can't she come down with flu or covid or
Speaker 5: stomach upset? We owe her nothing. We're copying criticism because
Speaker 5: she wasn't honest when she was appointed managed exit. Really
Speaker 5: we should be in damage control, not managed exit, s David.
Speaker 1: The judge found Buttrose's evidence under cross examination was somewhat
Speaker 1: theatrical and difficult to follow at times, but he ultimately
Speaker 1: found she didn't materially contribute to the decision to take
Speaker 1: Latouf off air. He said that call was made by
Speaker 1: executive Chris Oliver Taylor, and the judge said he rejected
Speaker 1: what Oliver Taylor said were his reasons, that he'd lost
Speaker 1: trust in Latouf and that she'd breached an instruction. The
Speaker 1: judge said he inferred the real reason was that Oliver
Speaker 1: Taylor was trying to protect the organization and his team.
Speaker 4: It can be accepted that mister Oliver Taylor was in
Speaker 4: a difficult position. It was one thing for the ABC
Speaker 4: to publish the HRW report as a news story, was
Speaker 4: quite another for Miss Latouf, having already made social media
Speaker 4: posts complained of as reflecting anti Semitic and anti Israel views,
Speaker 4: to repost the story. The HRW post was bound to
Speaker 4: be controversial. It was Latouf's making of the HRW post
Speaker 4: was ill advised and inconsiderate of her employer. However, mister
Speaker 4: Oliver Talien knew that Miss Latouf had not been given
Speaker 4: any direction not to post anything about the Israel Guards
Speaker 4: of War, and he had no more than a suspicion
Speaker 4: that miss Latouf may have breached some editorial ABC guideline
Speaker 4: or policy. Taylor sought to mitigate the anticipated delige of
Speaker 4: complaints and criticism of the ABC and his team for
Speaker 4: its employment of Miss Latouf following the HRW post by
Speaker 4: taking her off air and quote beating the story close quote.
Speaker 4: In that sense, the decision was made to appease the
Speaker 4: pro Israel lobbyists who would inevitably escalate their complaints about
Speaker 4: the ABC employing a presenter they perceived to have anti
Speaker 4: Semitic and anti Israel opinions in such a public position.
Speaker 1: The judge said that he didn't find Ida Buttro's was
Speaker 1: the key decision maker. How do you think she'd be
Speaker 1: feeling about that?
Speaker 4: Look?
Speaker 6: Ida Buttrose, from what I understand, was very by the
Speaker 6: book in terms of her understanding of the role of
Speaker 6: chairperson at the ABC, and she was quite strict in
Speaker 6: terms of observing the duties of her role. Made her
Speaker 6: feelings known within the ABC. She might have not necessarily
Speaker 6: had her hands on the steering roll all the time,
Speaker 6: but it was people were left in no uncertain terms
Speaker 6: as to her feelings on certain matters, one of which
Speaker 6: was social media use by staff as it so happens,
Speaker 6: and I'm led to believe that Eita hated the way
Speaker 6: a lot of journalists use social media. I think the
Speaker 6: Latouf thing is quite interesting, and that she would have
Speaker 6: been horrified, not only probably by the posting and the
Speaker 6: activist nature of it, but by the very fact that
Speaker 6: social media use had yet again come to the fore
Speaker 6: when the duration of her chairmanship she'd fought so hard
Speaker 6: to clamp down on it.
Speaker 1: The judges granted her seventy thousand dollars for non economic loss.
Speaker 1: That's less than she asked for. She asked for somewhere
Speaker 1: between one hundred thousand and one hundred and fifty thousand,
Speaker 1: and the reason is that he said that while she
Speaker 1: clearly was distressed at having been sacked and humiliated, that
Speaker 1: consuming clearly a lot of content about Gaza has also
Speaker 1: made her distressed. Is it an unequivocal win for Antoinette Latouf?
Speaker 6: Oh, it's a win the judge has found in her favor,
Speaker 6: so it certainly to a certain extent justifies her decision
Speaker 6: to take this action. Financially, I suppose it will have
Speaker 6: to wait until the cost judgment, and I see this
Speaker 6: morning Her gofund me page has raised more than two
Speaker 6: hundred thousand dollars to assist her with her legal case.
Speaker 6: Seventy thousand dollars in the context of an unlawful termination,
Speaker 6: I suppose, is an a whole lot of money, but
Speaker 6: perhaps for latof now, her personal brand, if you want
Speaker 6: to use that phrase, is so well known that she
Speaker 6: might be able to the most of some further media
Speaker 6: opportunities down the track as a result of the publicity
Speaker 6: of this case.
Speaker 1: James, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thanks Claire.
Speaker 1: James Madden is The Australian's Media editor. You can read
Speaker 1: his analysis and all the nation's best journalism by joining
Speaker 1: us at the Australian dot com dot au