It's difficult to know which was the more contrived: Monday's Q&A program on ABC TV, during which provocative comments about citizenship and Islamic State terrorism were directed at government frontbencher Steve Ciobo, or the response from Tony Abbott and his media cheer squad. If one was more authentic than the other, then the difference was no wider than the proverbial cigarette paper.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Zaky Mallah, the man who ambushed Mr Ciobo, is not only a jihadist sympathiser and provocateur of some years' standing, but an individual once convicted of threatening to kill ASIO officials. His appearance on Q&A appears not just to have been prearranged to enliven proceedings, but to provoke a reaction well beyond the program itself. The producers' refusal to divulge whether Mr Mallah approached Q&A (or vice versa) – or whether they knew beforehand what he was going to ask when given the floor by host Tony Jones – more or less confirms that hypothesis. Served up a full toss – and sensing another opportunity to bang the national security drum, as well as beat the left-leaning ABC about the ears – the Prime Minister and his media acolytes responded in appropriately outraged, indignant and aggrieved tones.
Q&A producers have a long track record of injecting panels and audiences with rabble-rousers, contrarians and dogmatists, the better to confect controversy and build ratings. The surprise is not that ABC management perseveres with this approach, but that television audiences continue to watch it. Given the broadcaster's defacto surrender to the ratings chase, however, the Q&A approach is unremarkable.
Mr Abbott would have been better advised not to buy into this tempest in a teacup, particularly given the likelihood that the Coalition's media supporters would savage Q&A for pandering to critics of his plans to strip those Australians fighting for IS of their citizenship. Having chosen to dip a toe into the water, Mr Abbott then waded right on in up to his chest, exposing himself to charges of hypocrisy, of potentially damaging Australia's efforts to counter jihadist propaganda, and of lacking good judgment.
The ABC's charter makes plain its obligation to reflect the Australian community's cultural diversity, and Mr Abbott's suggestion that the broadcaster has "betrayed Australians" by airing Mr Mallah's views (as objectionable as they might be) is wrong-headed. Equally as perverse is his question (directed at the ABC) of "whose side are you on?" This approach of "you're either with us or against us" is symptomatic of the Coalition's approach to counter-terrorism. Rather than pursuing a sensible bipartisan approach to the IS threat and how to deal with Australians who fall under its sway, the Coalition has instead engaged in wedge politics, portraying Labor as weak on IS terrorism reform, and itself as the only party capable of meeting that threat.
Not 15 months ago, the government was defending the right of people to be bigots. Now, in its zeal to play politics with counter-terrorism, it wants to pillory them. Ironically, it is Mr Abbott who looks narrow-minded.
