The ABC Removed A Story Criticising Government Policy After The PM Wrote A Cranky Letter
The story the government doesn't want you to see.
Last week, the ABC deleted a story criticising the government’s plan to slash corporate tax rates, because, it claimed, the story didn’t meet editorial standards. Sounds legit, except that we now know the story was actually removed after the Prime Minister and a bunch of cabinet ministers wrote in to have a whinge about it.
The ABC denies that government bullying pressure had anything to do with removing the story, but the timing’s a bit suspicious. It turns out that Malcolm Turnbull, communications minister Mitch Fifield, and Treasurer Scott Morrison all wrote cranky letters to the ABC before the article before it was removed.
What exactly was wrong with the article — which pointed out that the government’s plans to slash corporate tax rates are bizarre when so many large corporations are already paying little-to-no corporate tax — is not really clear.
The Weekend Australian quoted from the Fifield letter, which alleged the article contained “multiple factual errors and misrepresentations”, was “neither fair, balanced, accurate nor impartial”, and displayed “a lack of understanding about the tax system”. Turnbull made similar comments in Question Time last week, saying the story was “one of the most confused and poorly researched articles I’ve seen on this topic”.
Which is kind of weird, given that it was written by Emma Alberici, the ABC’s chief economics correspondent — a journalist with decades of experience reporting on the tax system, who has an economics degree and and was a 2001 Walkley Award finalist for a story on, you guessed it, tax minimisation.
In 2001 I was a @walkleys finalist for a story on tax minimisation #justsaying
— Emma Alberici (@albericie) February 16, 2018
Basically, it’s hard to argue that Alberici doesn’t understand the tax system, and experts agree. Economist Saul Eslake, who was quoted in the piece, has since confirmed that he didn’t see any errors in the piece, and that he had been quoted accurately. The Guardian’s economics columnist Greg Jericho has pointed out that Alberici’s analysis was neither inaccurate nor far-fetched.
Economist Saul Eslake on @albericie's tax-cut analysis:
"I didn't detect any factual errors and the quotes she attributed to me were accurate and in context."— ABC Melbourne (@abcmelbourne) February 18, 2018
What is incorrect in the @albericie report? I’ve read it & there are no factual errors. It does contain opinion, but dozens of ABC journalists express opinions daily. Pulling down the story & still having it under review sure looks like censorship https://t.co/pyAisIMGgi
— Craig Emerson (@DrCraigEmerson) 16 February 2018
No obvious factual problems, and Judith Sloan’s critique in the Oz doesn’t point to any. It’s opinionated, but then, as I understand it, it’s an opinion piece.
— JohnQuiggin (@JohnQuiggin) 17 February 2018
In fact, maybe the real question here is why the Prime Minister is writing to an independent public broadcaster to complain about stories in the first place.
Notice how all the complainants about the @albericie report are champions of free speech. They should be free to disagree with her opinions but shouldn’t be demanding the report be taken down – which the ABC readily agreed to do. #hypocrisy
— Craig Emerson (@DrCraigEmerson) February 18, 2018
You can read a cached version of the deleted story here. It’s worth having a look at what the government would apparently rather we didn’t see.
_
Feature image via the US Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for Public Affairs, used under CC BY 2.0