Zaky Mallah on Q&A

[icyfroth]

I'm surprised there's no thread about this. Maybe I just haven't seen it.

Q&A episode would be real comedy if it wasn’t so tragic

Nobody at the ABC seemed particularly worried that Mallah had spent time in prison due to a conviction for threatening the lives of ASIO officers.

On the contrary, the ABC fawned over Mallah as though he was a particularly sensitive and needy celebrity.

The former Goulburn prison resident was collected by an ABC-supplied minibus in Western Sydney prior to Monday’s broadcast.

As many as five senior ABC producers helped Mallah prepare for the show.

Host Tony Jones even whipped up a brief Mallah biography to accompany the young man’s appearance. And then the minibus dropped Mallah back home, all at taxpayer expense.

So let me get this straight.

The ABC give Mallah, convicted of death threats agains ASIO officers and various firearm offences, 8 minutes of air time during which he recommends 2 senior female journalists should be gang-banged. 

Has the ABC lost the plot?

 When an Islamic extremist who has called for female journalists to be “gang-banged” on live television and threatened to murder senior security officials wants to have his say on Q&A, the ABC not only welcomes him into the audience — for at least the third time, by the way — but they do everything possible to make his visit as amiable as possible.

Entire Article Here

He's just as erratic and threatening as Man Monis, and look what happened there. The ABC see fit to give him air time? What the F?

Why is the sisterhood not baying for his blood over his gang-banging comments?

[aftanas]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

I'm surprised there's no thread about this. Maybe I just haven't seen it.

Q&A episode would be real comedy if itwasn’t so tragic

---

I think the real comedy here is the aftermath of the program.

There are arguments that can be made about free speech.  I support free speech and I note that censorship and control of the media is one of the most fundamental tactics used by tyrannical governments to suppress the general population. Free speech is dangerous because it upsets people, and it allows people to make unwise choices.  However, censorship imperils the freedom to make the informed choices that are the basis of a democracy. 

On the other hand, speech can be weaponized.  In my opinion to the right to freedom of expression does not justify hate speech as the object of hate speech is not the advancement of a rhetorical position, but an attack on a person or group of people.  Hate speech is a verbal assault. It has nothing to do with free speech.

The broadcast and print media is responsible for its content.  Arguably hate speech is news: if a public figure rants about Jews or homosexuals the ethics of the media outlet would not be called into question for publishing he rant.  That was not the circumstance of the Q&A broadcast.

The ABC cannot be held responsible for the views expressed by Zaky Mallah.  It can and should be held responsible for the decision to broadcast those views.  So the Q&A issue is a fair topic for public debate.

However, the debate about the ABC seems not to be about responsible journalism, or whether fundamentalists zealots should or should not be permitted to publicly air their views.  Rather, the Q&A incident has sparked another round of ABC bashing.  I think the current round of attacks on the ABC have got less to do with the hate speech of Zaky Mallah and more to do with a longstanding ideological disdain for ABC and its editorial freedom.

The Daily Telegraph article quoted by icyfroth proves my point.  The argument is not a statement of fact.  Rather, it is an argument based on a narrow selection of facts, half truths and innuendo to imply that the ABC, as a matter of policy, promotes pro-terrorist and anti-Government rhetoric.  No reasonable person could mistake the article for a balanced analysis of the issues.  It is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple.

[raptor_rebooted]

Common sense should prevail.

when politicians in australia talk about knifing in the back

or throat slitting - do you believe they are making

death treats?

at which point to you apply common sense? 

[icyfroth]

---

@aftanas wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

I'm surprised there's no thread about this. Maybe I just haven't seen it.

Q&A episode would be real comedy if itwasn’t so tragic

---

I think the real comedy here is the aftermath of the program.

There are arguments that can be made about free speech.  I support free speech and I note that censorship and control of the media is one of the most fundamental tactics used by tyrannical governments to suppress the general population. Free speech is dangerous because it upsets people, and it allows people to make unwise choices.  However, censorship imperils the freedom to make the informed choices that are the basis of a democracy. 

On the other hand, speech can be weaponized.  In my opinion to the right to freedom of expression does not justify hate speech as the object of hate speech is not the advancement of a rhetorical position, but an attack on a person or group of people.  Hate speech is a verbal assault. It has nothing to do with free speech.

The broadcast and print media is responsible for its content.  Arguably hate speech is news: if a public figure rants about Jews or homosexuals the ethics of the media outlet would not be called into question for publishing he rant.  That was not the circumstance of the Q&A broadcast.

The ABC cannot be held responsible for the views expressed by Zaky Mallah.  It can and should be held responsible for the decision to broadcast those views.  So the Q&A issue is a fair topic for public debate.

However, the debate about the ABC seems not to be about responsible journalism, or whether fundamentalists zealots should or should not be permitted to publicly air their views.  Rather, the Q&A incident has sparked another round of ABC bashing.  I think the current round of attacks on the ABC have got less to do with the hate speech of Zaky Mallah and more to do with a longstanding ideological disdain for ABC and its editorial freedom.

The Daily Telegraph article quoted by icyfroth proves my point.  The argument is not a statement of fact.  Rather, it is an argument based on a narrow selection of facts, half truths and innuendo to imply that the ABC, as a matter of policy, promotes pro-terrorist and anti-Government rhetoric.  No reasonable person could mistake the article for a balanced analysis of the issues.  It is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple.

---

"t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

[alexander*beetle]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

why bring other examples into this?

the question which you highlighted was:

Why is the sisterhood not baying for his blood over his gang-banging comments?

you answered with:

Mallah fitted in quite well with the one who said Gillard should have her throat slit and the one who said she should be kicked to death and you're right, none of them should have been on QandA after their comments encouraging violence against women.

attempting  to detract attention from mallah/

justifying him being on the show  -

it is how i see it. 

---

They were all on the same episode of the same show.  Why should we focus on the one questioner and not on the guests?

Ciobo's response to the question was no better than the question, imo.  It seemed as if he was exercising his right to see how far he could push Mallah, hoping for a violent reaction. 

---

No. Mallah asked the question and he got a honest answer to which he responded with insolence, and the ABC got exactly what they set the show up for, namely, controversy.

---

Sorry Icy but he didn't give an honest answer. Mallah was acquited because the charge came under entrapment. Not as Ciobo said, a technicality.  Mallah has been on before as well as many other television shows. It is rubbish that it was a set up. Of course Mallah got upset by what Ciobo said as it was not a rational reply by a minister of the government. The rule of law overrules a government first and foremost and he dismissed the rule of law for his own political beliefs. 

Please tell me how his 'threat' to kill an ASIO officer is any different to Ciobo saying "Julia Gillard's throat should be slit", Grahame Morris's comment that the previous prime minister 'should be kicked to death", Alan Jones' comment "She should be put in a chaff bag and thown out to sea".  How are they any different?

[youcandoityoucandoityoucandoit]

Just wondering how many of those who have an opinion actually watched the Q&A program?

[raptor_rebooted]

Ciobo saying "Julia Gillard's throat should be slit"

careful what you state on a public forum

he did not actually say that

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

Common sense should prevail.

when politicians in australia talk about knifing in the back

or throat slitting - do you believe they are making

death treats?

at which point to you apply common sense? 

---

That's exactly the point I was making in my thread "Just A thought". .Who decrees what is or isn't common sense?  Once you take the determnation of what constitutes a death threat out of the jurisdiction of the courts and hand it over to a Government minister - a proposition Ciobo clearly suported on Q&A,-  then you become completely reliant on whatever government happens to be in powerat any given time to use that power honestly;  and if that government decides it would suit its purpose to conclude that saying something like "heads should roll" for instance, constitutes a death threat then you have no legal comeback.

[gleee58]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

They were all on the same episode of the same show.  Why should we focus on the one questioner and not on the guests?

Ciobo's response to the question was no better than the question, imo.  It seemed as if he was exercising his right to see how far he could push Mallah, hoping for a violent reaction. 

---

No. Mallah asked the question and he got a honest answer to which he responded with insolence, and the ABC got exactly what they set the show up for, namely, controversy.

---

Ciobo knew the question in advance, he knew Mallah could not be deported and yet he repeatedly said he would like to see him booted from the country.  Imo, it was an orchestrated attempt to provoke a reaction from Mallah.  

People who don't like QandA don't ahve to watch it. They also don't have to go on the newscorpse rampage and nit pick every episode the day after, having not seen the program in question.

[alexander*beetle]

I take your point and quote below. However, the comments are still vile. 

"the Prime Minister and her staff were in line to have their throats ''slit''.

''I think that if anybody had the opportunity to slit Julia Gillard's throat, Nick would be one of the first ones to be there.''

Peter Reith said that if I was her [Julia Gillard's] adviser I'd go and slit my throat too.

[gleee58]

t is an attack on the ABC, pure and simple."

Which it roundly deserves.

Why does it?  It is our public broadcaster providing a service to our community.  Why should we be deprived of it?  Why should one organization control all and filter all the news we see and hear?

And before you say it's biased, it's not. Much research has been done over the years because of the cries of bias from the conservatives and it's been found time and time again to not be biased.