The chaotic 48 hours that lead to former presenter’s axing

The Ousting of Antoinette Lattouf: A Controversial Decision at the ABC

The removal of Antoinette Lattouf from her role as a fill-in host on ABC Radio Sydney’s Mornings program in December 2023 has sparked a heated debate over journalistic independence, political bias, and the role of public broadcasters in Australia. Lattouf, a freelance journalist and presenter, was taken off the air just two days into her five-day contract after a flurry of complaints accused her of antisemitism. These complaints were fueled by her perceived support for Palestinians in the Israel-Gaza war, views she had not expressed on the air. The decision to remove her has now become the centerpiece of a Federal Court case in which Lattouf alleges unlawful termination, claiming her political opinions and Middle Eastern heritage played a role in the ABC’s decision.

The chain of events leading to Lattouf’s removal began on the evening of Tuesday, December 19, 2023, when ABC Chair Ita Buttrose sent a series of emails to Managing Director David Anderson. Buttrose, who had been forwarding numerous complaints about Lattouf, expressed frustration, writing, “Has Antoinette been replaced. I am over getting emails about her.” Anderson initially pushed back, arguing that Lattouf should finish her contract as planned, which was set to end that Friday. However, the situation escalated quickly. Buttrose suggested a “face-saving idea” for Lattouf to step down, such as faking an illness, and implied that Lattouf had not been honest during her appointment process—a claim Anderson rejected.

Despite Anderson’s initial reluctance, the pressure mounted. Chris Oliver-Taylor, the ABC’s chief content officer, ultimately decided to stand Lattouf down the following day, citing a post she had shared on Instagram from Human Rights Watch critical of Israel. Oliver-Taylor believed this violated a directive not to comment on the Israel-Gaza conflict during her tenure as a host. The decision was made in haste, with Oliver-Taylor texting Anderson that the media outlet The Australian was preparing to run a story on Lattouf, and he wanted to preempt it. The ABC officially maintains that Lattouf was not sacked but rather chose not to host the final two days of her contract. However, Lattouf disputes this, claiming she was abruptly told to leave the premises.

Internal Conflict and External Pressure: The ABC in Turmoil

The internal emails and text messages tendered in court paint a picture of an ABC in disarray. Buttrose’s emails reveal her growing impatience with the issue, while Anderson and Oliver-Taylor grappled with balancing editorial integrity, public perception, and legal risks. On Tuesday night, Oliver-Taylor had cautioned against removing Lattouf, warning that the backlash would be “phenomenal” and arguing that her views on the Middle East were well-known prior to her engagement. However, by Wednesday afternoon, he reversed his position, deciding that her Instagram post had crossed a line.

Buttrose’s role in the controversy has come under scrutiny. While she denied wanting Lattouf removed, her emails show a clear desire to resolve the issue quickly, even if it meant forcing Lattouf off the air. When questioned in court, Buttrose maintained that she was merely forwarding complaints and had no direct involvement in the decision to stand Lattouf down. However, Lattouf’s legal team has suggested that Buttrose’s actions reflect a broader bias against her client. The ABC’s head of audio content, Ben Latimer, testified that Lattouf had been directed not to post about the Israel-Gaza conflict on social media during her tenure, but Lattouf disputes this, arguing that no such explicit instruction was given.

The case has also highlighted concerns about the ABC’s vulnerability to external lobbying. Lattouf alleges that the broadcaster caved to pressure from pro-Israel groups, a claim the ABC denies. The complaints against Lattouf were not only about her Instagram post but also about an article she had co-authored for Crikey earlier that year. In the article, Lattouf reported on unverified claims that pro-Palestinian protesters had chanted antisemitic slogans, a story that was later disputed by NSW Police. Some of the complaints accused her of antisemitism, though Lattouf maintains that her work was factual and unbiased.

Antoinette Lattouf’s Case: Allegations of Unlawful Termination

At the heart of Lattouf’s Federal Court case is the claim that her termination was unlawful and motivated by her political opinions and racial background. Her legal team argues that the ABC bowed to external pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists and that her removal was a breach of her employment rights. Lattouf’s barrister, Philip Boncardo, has questioned the ABC’s handling of the situation, pointing out inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the broadcaster’s executives. For example, while the ABC claims Lattouf was not sacked and that her contract simply ended as planned, the Fair Work Commission has already ruled that her employment was effectively terminated.

Lattouf’s case has also raised questions about the ABC’s editorial independence. The broadcaster’s charter requires it to remain impartial and to act in the public interest. However, Lattouf’s legal team contends that her removal undermines this principle, as it appears to prioritize political expediency over journalistic freedom. The case has sparked broader debates about the role of public broadcasters in balancing competing pressures from lobbyists, politicians, and the public.

Ita Buttrose’s Defense: “I Didn’t Wish Her to Be Removed”

Ita Buttrose, the former ABC chair, has been a key figure in the controversy, with her emails and testimony drawing significant attention. During her time in the witness box, Buttrose denied any direct involvement in Lattouf’s removal, stating, “I didn’t wish her to be removed. I didn’t put pressure on anybody.” She explained that her emails were simply a way of “sharing the pain” of dealing with the influx of complaints and that she was not advocating for Lattouf’s dismissal. However, Lattouf’s legal team has pointed to Buttrose’s suggestion that Lattouf fake an illness as evidence of her desire to see the presenter removed.

Buttrose also faced questions about her handling of the complaints. She forwarded numerous emails from the public to other executives, including Oliver-Taylor, despite Anderson’s request that she send them directly to him. Buttrose’s actions have been interpreted by some as an attempt to escalate the situation and force a resolution. However, she maintained that she was merely fulfilling her duties as chair and had no ulterior motives. The court will ultimately decide whether her actions contributed to Lattouf’s termination and whether the ABC’s decision was lawful.

The ABC’s Defense: “She Was Not Sacked”

The ABC has steadfastly maintained that Lattouf was not sacked but rather chose not to continue in her role after being stood down. The broadcaster claims that her contract was always intended to last only five days and that she was paid for the entire period, including the two days she did not work. However, this narrative is disputed by Lattouf, who alleges that she was effectively terminated without cause.

The ABC’s defense also hinges on its assertion that Lattouf’s Instagram post violated editorial guidelines. The broadcaster claims that she was explicitly directed not to comment on the Israel-Gaza conflict during her time as a host, a claim Lattouf disputes. The evidence presented in court includes an email from Steve Ahern, the acting head of capital city networks, which states that Lattouf’s line manager had “reiterated the importance of not talking about Israel-Gaza in her shows” and had “suggested that Antoinette may be wise not to post anything on her socials this week.” However, Lattouf’s legal team argues that this directive was not clearly communicated or enforced.

The case has broader implications for the ABC and its commitment to editorial independence. If the court rules in Lattouf’s favor, it could set a precedent for how public broadcasters handle external pressure and balance editorial integrity with political sensitivities. The outcome will also have implications for journalists and presenters who express political opinions outside of their official roles.

The Broader Implications: Free Speech, Journalism, and Public Broadcasting

The case of Antoinette Lattouf has sparked a national conversation about the role of public broadcasters in modern Australia. At its core, the controversy raises questions about the balance between editorial independence, political neutrality, and the influence of external pressures. Lattouf’s allegations of unlawful termination highlight the challenges faced by journalists who express opinions that may be perceived as controversial or politically charged.

The ABC, as a public broadcaster, is expected to uphold democratic values, including the free exchange of ideas and the representation of diverse perspectives. However, the Lattouf case suggests that even in such institutions, journalists may face consequences for expressing views that are deemed politically sensitive. Lattouf’s legal team has argued that her removal undermines the principle of free speech and sets a dangerous precedent for journalists who dare to express opinions that challenge the status quo.

As the Federal Court prepares to hear closing submissions on February 27, the outcome of Lattouf’s case will have far-reaching implications for the ABC, its employees, and the broader media landscape in Australia. The decision will not only determine whether Lattouf’s termination was lawful but also shed light on the extent to which public broadcasters are vulnerable to external pressures and political influence. Whatever the ruling, the case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by journalists and broadcasters in navigating the complexities of modern media, where the lines between personal opinion, editorial neutrality, and public expectations are increasingly blurred.