The Lattouf Case: A Turning Point for Media Accountability

On Wednesday, journalist Antoinette Lattouf was awarded at least $70,000 in compensation after winning her unlawful termination case against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The case against the national broadcaster was sparked by Lattouf’s sudden dismissal from a casual position in 2023. Ultimately, the Federal Court ruled that Lattouf was unfairly sacked after sharing a post that accused Israel of war crimes during its military campaign in Gaza. 

What Happened?

Antoinette Lattouf is an award-winning Australian journalist best known for her work as a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald and co-founding Media Diversity Australia, a not-for-profit organisation which aims to increase cultural diversity in Australian media.  

In December of 2023, Lattouf was hired for a casual position on the Sydney ABC Radio program, Mornings. Lattouf has also reported with Crikey, investigating videos taken from a pro-Palestine march by the Australian Jewish Association. This article, in combination with a social media post reshared by Lattouf alleging that Israel is using starvation as a weapon in the Gaza war, led to a coordinated campaign by two pro-Israel groups for Lattouf’s termination. 

Leaked WhatsApp messages from a group called ‘Lawyers for Israel’ reportedly show Nicky Stein, a Sydney lawyer, urging the group’s 156 members to repeatedly contact both the masthead as well as Michelle Rowland, the Federal Minister of Communication at the time. She stated that the group’s position as lawyers would help the ABC to feel that ‘there is an actual legal threat’, which would convince them to terminate Lattouf’s employment.

Almost immediately after her first show, complaints about Lattouf began to appear. 

A back-and-forth of ABC executives ensued, culminating at 11 pm when Simon Melkman, acting editorial director at the ABC, defended Lattouf. However, this is framed only within the context of the ABC’s reputation and justified by the short length of her 5-day contract. Executives acknowledged Melkman’s “thoughtful and considerate advice” and said that there is no “justification for pulling her off air”. Subsequently, polite, pro-forma responses were drafted to be sent in response to complaints. 

However, Ita Buttrose, then Chair of the ABC, clearly had a different opinion, opting instead to remove Latouff. Much like an author planning a plot device for their main character, Buttrose questions via email, “Why can’t she come down with the flu? Or Covid. Or a stomach upset?”, eager to be rid of Latouff as soon as possible.

Within hours, Latouff’s reputation within the ABC, where she was previously noted as a potential future presenter, was downgraded to social pariah. At 5:09 pm on the 20th of December 2023, Latouff was fired 3 days into her 5-day contract. Buttrose commented that “it’s nice to get congratulatory emails” in response to her decision. 

What was the response?

After her termination, Lattouf filed an unlawful termination claim with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), citing that her political opinion and ethnicity were major factors in her termination. Although conciliation efforts by the FWC failed, on the 3rd of June 2023, the commission found that Lattouf was dismissed wrongfully by the ABC. This allowed Lattouf to lodge her case with the Federal Court.

During the 18-month-long proceedings, ABC executives defended their actions by asserting that Lattouf breached social media guidelines, a claim which Lattouf disputed as her repost conveyed information from a reputable source. In response to Lattouf’s claim that race was a factor in her dismissal, the ABC argued that Lattouf’s case needed to prove the existence of a Lebanese, Arab or Middle Eastern race. After widespread criticism, Ian Neil SC, lead barrister for the ABC, said in court that “the ABC does not deny the existence of any race”. In the final judgement, Lattouf’s ethnicity was not stated as a factor in her dismissal.

The outcome of the Lattouf v ABC case firmly establishes a precedent for protecting the political opinion of employees alongside race and gender. 

A Moment of Hypocrisy

The first ABC principle speaks to the corporation’s commitment to maintaining independence, integrity and responsibility in its journalism. The standards also state that the ABC should “ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests”.

However, in this case, the ABC has paradoxically chosen to focus only on another of its editorial policies, which states that “external activities of individuals undertaking work for the ABC must not undermine the independence…of the ABC’s editorial content.” Interestingly, this last policy has also been applied selectively to Latouff, with other notorious presenters such as Laura Tingle and Paul Barry not subjected to similar scrutiny for expressing personal views. This raises important questions about whether true impartiality can be achieved in journalism. 

Impartiality is essential as it builds public trust and prevents ideological manipulation or misinformation. However, when the application of impartiality becomes selective, it undermines the ethical principles that make up the cornerstone of fair and balanced reporting. The judge found that Chris Oliver-Taylor, Chief Content Officer for the ABC, had made the decision “to appease the pro-Israel lobbyists”, displaying a breach of the ABC’s principles and standards. This revelation comes at a time of increasing news consumption in Australia. The 2024 Australian Digital News Report showed a 3% increase in Australians seeking to access news, with 51% saying they read the news more than once a day, exemplifying the importance of unbiased journalism.

Whilst the ABC has ultimately offered an apology for their actions, the cases’ $1.1 million bill tells us the focus of the ABC. 

There is a crisis emerging in the credibility of Australian media, one that is hopefully suppressed as fast as the decision was made to oust Antoinette Lattouf.