A storm is raging in an ABC cup over journalistic freedom. Not, of course, the kind of freedom that would allow classical liberal and conservative views to be intelligently presented on the national broadcaster rather than demonised. No, staunch pro-Palestinian and columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald Antoinette Lattouf has taken legal action against the ABC for what she alleges was unlawful termination.

Lattouf cheerily told her followers on social media on 24 November that, ‘As an independent and freelance journalist, nobody can fire me’, only to find herself, in her words, ‘thrown under the bus’ a month later by the ABC. As the Proverbs warn, ‘Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall’.

It all came to pass because Lattouf was asked to fill in for ABC radio host Sarah Macdonald for five days from 18 December as a casual presenter of Sydney’s Mornings. The ABC paid Lattouf in full for her five-day stint but cancelled her last two on-air appearances because management alleged that she had ‘failed or refused to comply with directions that she not post on social media about matters of controversy during the short period she was presenting’.

Despite this instruction, Lattouf shared a post by Human Rights Watch which claimed that the Israeli government was using starvation as a method of warfare in Gaza, which is a war crime. Lattouf and Human Rights Watch (HRW) consider this to be a statement of fact but there is widespread criticism, including from its former chairman Robert L. Bernstein, that HRW is heavily biased against Israel. Famed Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky wrote of HRW, ‘Here is an organisation created by the goodwill of the free world to fight violations of human rights, which has become a tool in the hands of dictatorial regimes to fight against democracies’. In short, HRW is by definition controversial.

Interestingly, Lattouf’s columns for the SMH seem uncontroversial, at least to judge by the headlines. For example, her most recent headline is, ‘I’m addicted to Christmas movies, even the turkeys’ and before that, ‘Why the pluck are people shaving their eyebrows?’ If Lattouf had stuck to tweeting about trends in facial hair it seems unlikely her last two shifts would have been ‘cancelled’.

Lattouf has taken the ABC to the Fair Work Commission for unlawful termination on the grounds that she was dismissed because of a ‘political opinion or a reason that included political opinion’ and race (Lattouf’s parents are Lebanese-born).

The ABC claims Lattouf’s ‘application is fundamentally and entirely misconceived’. Its guidelines require high-profile staff to be particularly careful ‘not to damage the ABC’s reputation for impartiality and independence’. They are specifically advised to ‘consider the picture painted by likes, shares, hashtags and who is followed’ which ‘may seem innocuous in isolation but viewed in aggregate could risk breaching’ the guidelines.

Given the guidelines, some commentators have said the problem stems not so much from Latouffe’s termination as from hiring her. The ABC Alumni, an association of former staff, said it, ‘understands and respects the principle that staff at the ABC should allow their personal opinions to intrude on their work’ and added that, ‘no genuine supporter of public broadcasting should dispute that.’ But, they said, ‘if the ABC believed that Ms Lattouf’s earlier social media posts raised questions about her perceived objectivity, it should not have appointed her to an on-air role, on a program in which the Gaza conflict would almost inevitably be covered, at this particular time.’ Fair point.

It was a view shared by a group called Lawyers for Israel which was incensed by Lattouf’s appointment, seeing her as ‘an advocacy “journalist” (with an active anti-Israel social media presence despite ABC policies to the contrary)’. They saw her employment as a breach of Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice to be impartial. Love her or loathe her, it seems few consider her to be neutral.

But the ABC Alumni went on to say that having appointed her, ‘the ABC should have robustly resisted outside pressure until and unless Ms Lattouf had breached the ABC’s editorial policies during her broadcasts’. This appears to be a direct reference to the Lawyers for Israel who wrote letters protesting Lattouf’s appointment.

Lattouf told BBC World News presenter Matthew Amroliwala that she had ‘no beef or issue with those who wish to lobby’. Just as well since the Australian reported this week that, ‘Muslims lobby to axe “sinful” university HECS-HELP debts’.

Lattouf said her problem with lobbyists only occurred when ‘a lobby group seems to have a direct channel… to very senior people, in this case, the chair of the board at the ABC, and can influence an outcome so rapidly’. On social media, she tweeted, ‘Another pro-Israel WhatsApp lobbying the ABC. It makes me sick in the stomach to see people celebrate my sacking…. It makes me worry about the ABC’s integrity’.

Meanwhile, a pro-Palestinian lobby organised itself equally quickly after coverage by Nine media disclosed the names of the lawyers and they received messages saying, ‘Jewish rodent’, ‘Tick-tock, you’re going to be hung from a bridge very soon’, ‘little b–ch… I’ve got your face now, it’ll be spreading like the Palestinian wave’, and I’ll get ‘the Law Society to strip you of your ability to practice law’ so your business will ‘disappear before your eyes’. Lattouf hasn’t shared on social media how she feels about the messages.

Denis Muller, a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Advancing Journalism at the University of Melbourne echoed the Alumni concerns in an article for the Conversation but said that issuing a ‘generalised blanket instruction to a presenter to not post anything “controversial” on social media’ suggested that ABC management had caved in to ‘two decades of cumulative intimidation, hostility, board-stacking and financial punishment inflicted on the ABC by successive Liberal-National federal governments’.

The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) tweeted: ‘It’s time to make a stand for the truth and for journalism without fear or favour. The public’s right to know is diminished when journalists are unable to provide factual information accurately, fairly, and transparently because they fear retribution from their employers to appease external critics’.

As the MEAA sees it, ‘Right now in Australia, truth-telling and journalism without fear or favour is being compromised by media bosses punishing journalists for daring to discuss the issues of our times: human rights, climate change, the war in Gaza’. It warns that, ‘This has a chilling effect on other journalists that they too may be punished for stepping out of line, forcing them to compromise on their duty to the public to report the truth without fear or favour.’

Better late than never perhaps, but the MEAA had precious little to say when governments, media and social media giants censored the writing, speech, and broadcasting of Australian journalists, medical professionals and others, including this writer, during the pandemic.

A stoush between the ABC and a pro-Palestinian journalist over free speech? Pass the popcorn and an ice-cold serving of schadenfreude. In the immortal words of Henry Kissinger, ‘If only they could both lose.’