media/Broadcasting... Web viewInclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of ... Abbott has not moved a single fighter jet to oust him ... State fighters who are killing

Investigation Report No.3302File no. ACMA2014/848

Broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Station ABV (ABC1)

Type of service National broadcasting service (television)

Name of program Lateline

Date of broadcast 8 October 2014

Relevant code provisions

Standard 4.1 of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014)

Date finalised 9 March 2015

Decision No breach of standard 4.1 (impartiality)

ACMA Investigation Report – Lateline broadcast by ABV (ABC1) on 8 October 2014

The complaintIn November 2014, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) commenced an investigation into an interview conducted during the program Lateline, broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) on ABC1 on 8 October 2014.

The complainant alleged that the interviewer exhibited ‘characteristics of prejudice, racism and discrimination’ and breached the impartiality standard of the ABC Code of Practice 2011 (revised in 2014) (the Code).

The complainant was not satisfied with the broadcaster’s response to their complaint and referred the complaint to the ACMA.1

The programLateline is a news and current affairs program. The ABC website2 states:

The program is a provocative, challenging and intelligent window on today's world.

Lateline engages the foremost experts or commentators - wherever in the world they may be - to bring you penetrating insights from a range of perspectives. If they're making news, launching new ideas, or at the forefront of debate, the team at Lateline will track them down and bring them to you.

The subject of the complaint is an interview conducted by presenter Emma Alberici, of Wassim Doureihi, a prominent member of the organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Hizb ut-Tahrir describes itself as:

[A] political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology.

[…]

Its aim is to resume the Islamic way of life and to convey the Islamic da'wah to the world. This objective means bringing the Muslims back to living an Islamic way of life in Dar al-Islam and in an Islamic society such that all of life's affairs in society are administered according to the Shari'ah rules, and the viewpoint in it is the halal and the haram under the shade of the Islamic State, which is the Khilafah State.

[…]

The work of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to carry the Islamic da'wah in order to change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society.3

A transcript of the interview is at Attachment A.

AssessmentThis investigation is based on submissions from the complainant and the ABC and a copy of the broadcast provided to the ACMA by the ABC. Other sources used have been identified where relevant.

1 Sections 150 and 151 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 set out the ACMA’s role in investigating complaints relating to national broadcasting services provided by the ABC.

2 http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/about.htm3 http://www.hizb-australia.org/hizb-ut-tahrir/about-us

ACMA Investigation Report – Lateline broadcast by ABV (ABC1) on 8 October 2014 2

In assessing content against the Code, the ACMA considers the meaning conveyed by the relevant material. This is assessed according to the understanding of an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ viewer.

Australian courts have considered an ‘ordinary, reasonable’ viewer to be:

A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs.4

The ACMA considers the natural, ordinary meaning of the language, context, tenor, tone, visual images and any inferences that may be drawn. In the case of factual material which is presented, the ACMA will also consider relevant omissions (if any).

Once the ACMA has applied this test to ascertain the meaning of the material that was broadcast, it then assesses compliance with the Code.

Issue 1: Impartiality

Relevant Code provision 4. Impartiality and diversity of perspectives

4.1: Gather and present news and information with due impartiality

The Code requires that these standards are interpreted and applied in accordance with the relevant principles, which include the following:

Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

o a balance that follows the weight of evidence;

o fair treatment;

o open-mindedness; and

o opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of

contention to be expressed.

[...]

Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.

Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

o the type, subject and nature of the content;

o the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;

4 Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at pp 164–167.


o the likely audience expectations of the content;

o the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;

o the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and

o the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide

opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.

Complainant’s submissionsThe complainant’s submissions are set out at Attachment B.

Broadcaster’s submissionsThe broadcaster’s submissions are set out at Attachment C.

Finding The ABC did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

ReasonsThe relevant provisions require the ABC to ‘gather and present news and information with due impartiality’ [emphasis added]. Inclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of flexibility depending on the particular context.

Achieving impartiality requires a broadcaster to gather and present content in a way which avoids conveying a prejudgment, or giving effect to the affections or enmities of the presenter or reporter, who play a key role in setting the tone of the program, through their style and choice of language.

A program that presents a perspective that is opposed by a particular person or group is not inherently partial. Whether a breach of the Code has occurred will depend on the themes in the program, any editorial comment, the overall presentation of the story and the circumstances in which the program was prepared and broadcast.

It is also possible, indeed useful, for a reporter to adopt a strong contrarian stance without this necessarily amounting to a lack of impartiality – particularly if the contrarian stance encourages the interviewee to explain or defend a position or claim.

The current political climate in the Middle East and its local ramifications are topics that are highly newsworthy. There is a range of contentious perspectives on these topics and they are in the public interest to report.

In this case, the purpose of the interview was to seek a response from Hizb ut-Tahrir on comments made by the Prime Minister, the Hon. Tony Abbott, MP, that he wanted the organisation banned. These had been reported in the 7.30 program broadcast by the ABC earlier on 8 October 20145 which had described Hizb ut-Tahrir as a global Islamist group that authorities fear is radicalising young Australians.

5 http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4103156.htm


7.30 had also reported that the group had organised meetings in Sydney in response to Australia joining air strikes in Iraq and included excerpts of an interview with the Prime Minister by Alan Jones on radio 2GB that morning6 in which Mr Jones noted that the group had been banned in Arab nations. The Prime Minister advised that Hizb ut-Tahrir cannot be banned in Australia under existing law, but he was planning new laws to make it a crime to promote terrorism.

The interview in the Lateline program, the subject of this investigation, opened:

EMMA ALBERICI: With the Prime Minister today declaring that he'd like to put a ban on the radical Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, spokesman for the group, Wassim Doureihi, joins me now. Thank you for coming in.WASSIM DOUREIHI: Thank you.EMMA ALBERICI: We've invited you here tonight to help Australians better understand what it is that you stand for. So tell me first of all, do you support the murderous campaign being waged by Islamic State fighters in Iraq?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Well, thank you very much for the opportunity. There is an urgent need in this country to have quite open and honest conversation. I want to take a moment just to take a step back. (Inaudible). I will come specifically - I will come ...EMMA ALBERICI: But I would like you to take this moment to my question only because we will have some time to go through a number of issues and I don't want to run out of time.

In the circumstances of Hizb ut-Tahrir’s public response to Australian operations in Iraq targeted at Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters and the then current reports of comments by the Prime Minister that it was a ‘thoroughly objectionable organisation’, it was appropriate for the ABC to ask specific questions about what the group stands for and its attitude to the ISIS campaign.

As a ‘news analysis’ program, ordinary, reasonable viewers of Lateline would expect the program’s presenters to be probing and challenging in their interviews and in their presentation of topical or contentious subjects. The ACMA considers that in a discussion about matters touching on Australian national security, such as the radicalisation of local Muslims to jihad, a particularly probing interview would be expected and that unanswered questions would be repeated.

In this case, there was consistent interruption and talking over each other by the presenter and the interviewee. However, Mr Doureihi was given the opportunity to respond to Ms Alberici’s questions and he did make points that ISIS exists in a particular context being ‘a century or more of colonial occupation’ and about the absence of a discussion about ‘what Western Governments are doing in the Muslim world’. He also raised questions about Assad and Syria before Ms Alberici asked why he was not willing to condemn the actions of the Islamic State as other community leaders such as Dr Jamel Rifi, a Sydney Muslim leader, had done.

They subsequently debated whether Ms Alberici was asking ‘legitimate questions’ and what their roles in the interview were. Mr Doureihi also said ‘as Muslims we have a fixed moral

6 https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-10-08/interview-alan-jones-radio-2gb-sydney


compass that says unequivocally, under any conditions, it’s an aberration to kill innocent victims’ but he avoided answering Ms Alberici directly when she gave him the opportunity to tell young Muslim men not to join Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria. He returned again to ‘foreign occupation, political repression’ and asked why she did not condemn the Australian and American Governments for the killings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although the parties were at times argumentative and talked over each other, Ms Alberici’s tone was measured and courteous as she repeatedly sought answers to her specific questions and then moved to different questions on the same theme. At times she took a strong contrarian stance in order to elicit a response from Mr Doureihi, however, this occurred in the context of her attempts to explore Hizb ut-Tahrir’s reported position on the Australian operation in Iraq and concerns that it radicalises young Muslim followers.

In relation to the four hallmarks of impartiality, the ACMA notes the following:

A balance that follows the weight of evidence

As noted above, the questions asked of Mr Doureihi were topical and newsworthy. There is no dispute that Hizb ut-Tahrir’s response to the operations and events in the Middle East had occurred, nor that it was a key subject of the discussion that had unfolded on the day of the broadcast.

The focus of the interview was to provide Mr Doureihi an opportunity to respond to the Prime Minister’s comments about Hizb ut-Tahrir, as well as provide an opportunity to clarify the stance of the organisation on ISIS activities. In this context, the stance and balance of the interview followed the weight of evidence.

Fair treatment

Mr Doureihi did not respond to Ms Alberici’s initial question with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Ms Alberici took exception to this and twice more asked Mr Doureihi to answer the question she had put to him before stating ‘you are clearly obfuscating’. In response Mr Doureihi said ‘absolutely not’.

During much of the interview both the interviewer and interviewee talked over one another and both parties appeared to be frustrated by course the interview took.

The ABC submitted to the complainant that Ms Alberici had:

[…] a duty to conduct a testing interview that does not allow the interviewee to use the occasion as a political platform. It is her duty to put other points of view to the interviewee and her responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the questions are answered.

By requiring the interviewee to respond to specific questions and not go ‘off topic’, Ms Alberici was giving fair treatment to the specific issue at hand.

In relation to Ms Alberici’s treatment of Mr Doureihi, the ABC submitted to the complainant that:

Every question posed to Mr Doureihi was relevant and based strictly on news value and he was afforded ample opportunity to respond to the questions that were asked. We are satisfied the interview was suitably courteous and respectful.

The ABC submitted to the ACMA that:


The questions put to Wassim Doureihi during the interview were all pertinent to these issues, extending a fair opportunity to Hizb ut-Tahrir to state its position. Mr Doureihi deflected all questions on this subject put to him by the interviewer.

While Ms Alberici’s interview style was forthright and challenging she asked questions that were relevant to the subject matter and gave Mr Doureihi repeated opportunities to respond. As noted above, Mr Douerihi did succeed in making points about the role of Western Governments in the Middle East, and although both parties expressed frustration, Ms Albericis’s tone was, in context, measured and not discourteous.

Mr Doureihi’s apparent disagreement with the line of questioning did not diminish Ms Alberici’s efforts to obtain a response and give fair treatment to the topic and the interviewee himself.

Open-mindedness

The nature of current affairs interviewing requires presenters to be critically evaluative in their analysis of important issues. While probing and challenging questions may be used to explore an issue, programs must demonstrate a willingness to include alternative perspectives without prejudgement.

In its response to the complainant on the style and interviewing technique the ABC stated:

The adversarial or ‘devil’s advocate’ style of interviewing, employed at times by Emma Alberici, can generate a strong and mixed reaction from the public. Part of the technique of the ‘devil’s advocate’ approach is to take major points of criticism from various sources and put them to the interviewee for response. This can sometimes give the audience the impression that these are the personal views of the interviewer. This is not the case.

The ABC also submitted to the ACMA:

This was a genuine and open-minded attempt to present principal relevant perspectives on the contentious issue of whether Hizb ut-Tahrir supports terrorism and, in particular, the recent activities of Islamic State.

On numerous occasions Ms Alberici concluded that Mr Doureihi would not provide direct answers to her questions, despite her requesting that he do so. The ABC submitted to the ACMA that:

Changing tack in an effort to clarify the group’s views, the interviewer engaged with claims made by Mr Doureihi and questioned their factual basis.

While Ms Aberici adopted a ‘devil’s advocate’ style and interruptions were a significant feature of the interview, there is no evidence to indicate that the questions were motivated by prejudice, racism or discrimination towards Muslims as suggested by the complainant.

Ms Alberici interrupted in order to procure direct responses to the Prime Minister’s assertions and to explore the philosophy of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Her focus was on tactics of the group, rather than Muslims generally and their beliefs and practices, and she made it clear that the group did not represent the general Muslim community with questions such as ‘People like community leaders here in Australia like Dr Jamil Rafi who has publicly condemned the actions of Islamic State. Why won’t you do the same?’


In addition, as noted above, on a number of occasions during the interview Ms Alberici also allowed Mr Doureihi to expand on some of his remarks, despite not answering her questions.

Opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed

In its response to the complainant, the ABC stated:

Lateline is a current affairs program that seeks to provide context and analysis of major news stories, and we are satisfied that it is the role of the program to test and examine the philosophy, intentions and public statements of Mr Doureihi’s group, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The ABC further submitted to the ACMA:

This was a genuine and open-minded attempt to present principal relevant perspectives on the contentious issue of whether Hizb ut-Tahrir supports terrorism and, in particular, the recent activities of Islamic State.

The 7.30 program broadcast earlier that evening featured shots from 2007 of Mr Doureihi stating the group had no association with terrorism and the then Attorney-General, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, MP, saying the group would be monitored. The reporter said ‘Today, the normally vocal Hizb ut-Tahrir declined an interview. Mainstream Muslim leaders don’t support the group, but don’t support banning it either’.

By interviewing Mr Doureihi, on behalf of Hizb ut-Tahrir, with the aim of procuring a response to the Prime Minister’s specific comments about that organisation aired in the earlier 7.30 program that day, the ABC was providing an opportunity for a range of principal relevant perspectives to be presented on a current matter of contention.

As the interview was conducted with Mr Doureihi and aired on the same day that the Prime Minister’s comments had been broadcast on 2GB and then highlighted in the 7.30 program, it is considered that the alternative perspectives were presented within an appropriate timeframe.

Conclusion

In this case, the ACMA accepts the ABC’s submission that the program sought to test and examine the philosophy, intentions and public statements of Mr Doureihi’s group, Hizb ut-Tahrir. This occurred following reports about the organisation’s stance on Australian operations against ISIS. Although the parties interrupted each other, Ms Alberici remained focussed on obtaining Mr Doureihi’s response on behalf of the group.

In this context, having regard to the four hallmarks of impartiality set out in the relevant Principles of the Code, the ACMA is satisfied that due impartiality was shown in the conduct of the interview and that the ABC therefore did not breach standard 4.1 of the Code.

Attachment A

TRANSCRIPT: LATELINE – IS A REACTION TO UNJUST OCCUPATION - 8 OCTOBER 2014


EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: With the Prime Minister today declaring that he'd like to put a ban on the radical Islamic organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir, spokesman for the group, Wassim Doureihi, joins me now.

Thank you for coming in.

WASSIM DOUREIHI, HIZB UT-TAHRIR: Thank you.

EMMA ALBERICI: We've invited you here tonight to help Australians better understand what it is that you stand for. So tell me first of all, do you support the murderous campaign being waged by Islamic State fighters in Iraq?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Well, thank you very much for the opportunity. There is an urgent need in this country to have quite open and honest conversation. I want to take a moment just to take a step back. (Inaudible). I will come specifically - I will come ...

EMMA ALBERICI: But I would like you to take this moment to my question only because we will have some time to go through a number of issues and I don't want to run out of time.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I will come specifically to that question. We won't run out of time. We'll definitely address the most important and pertinent points. The first point is this: that when we discuss the events in the Middle East, in the Muslim world, our entry point shouldn't be what ISIS is doing or not doing. ISIS exists in a particular context. What's that context? That context is a century or more of colonial occupation at the hands of the very governments ...

EMMA ALBERICI: And I don't want to talk to you about the context at this point in time. I want to address the ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I will.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... very specific nature of my question ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I will, I will. And the fact that ...

EMMA ALBERICI: ... which is the tactics ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: The fact that ...

EMMA ALBERICI: ... that this group is employing. Do you support them or not?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: The fact that we don't want to have this discussion now is indicative of where the entire discussion on the war on terror narrative goes. The fact is the entire response isn't what Muslims are doing or may not be doing, but no-one legitimately or sincerely is discussing what Western governments are doing in the Muslim world. Groups like ISIS or al-Qaeda don't exist in a vacuum. They exist as a reaction to Western interference in the Islamic lands and they view themselves, rightfully or wrongfully, irrespective of my opinion or otherwise, as a resistance effort to what they regard as an unjust occupation.


EMMA ALBERICI: And with respect, many commentators all over the world have made that very point. What I'm asking you specifically is their tactics. Of course people are angry; we understand that. But what I'm asking you is the tactic that's being employed to push back. Do you support it?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Well let me explain something very clearly. I will explain very clearly.

EMMA ALBERICI: Answer my question, please.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I'll explain to you why the question itself is quite disconcerting, because what we're talking about is a particular reality where millions have lost their lives. Countries have been destroyed, homes ...

EMMA ALBERICI: You are clearly obfuscating ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Absolutely not.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... and I did not invite you ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: No, I reject that, I reject the accusation.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... onto this program to do that.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I'll say very clearly: why is it not offensive ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Why will you not point blank condemn the actions of IS fighters?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Why is it not offensive? Because the question itself is offensive.

EMMA ALBERICI: Men who cut off the heads of innocent journalists and aid workers. Why will you not take the opportunity?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: You can ask the question - you can ask the question ...

EMMA ALBERICI: You have a national platform here.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Yes. And I'm quite aware of that.

EMMA ALBERICI: Why don't you adopt the leadership that many have obviously given you responsibility for?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: The question is: why won't you allow me to answer the question that I deem appropriate.

EMMA ALBERICI: Answer it.


WASSIM DOUREIHI: I've answered the question quite - quite directly. We're talking about a reality in which millions have lost their lives directly as a consequence of the foreign policies of countries like Australia and ...

EMMA ALBERICI: And you have made that point and I allowed you to make that point.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: But what hasn't been made, what hasn't been made is what are we going to do about it? There is little discussion ...

EMMA ALBERICI: The viewers will make their own judgments about the points ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Of course they will. And I have absolute trust in the Australian population.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... you have made. And now I would just draw you back to my question.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Yeah, and I'll keep repeating the same point. This cannot possibly be our entry point in this discussion ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Do you support ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: ... because why is the attention on ISIS - what ISIS is doing or not doing? Our position on ISIS is very clear. Our position on ISIS was released years before Tony Abbott wanted to make it a political issue.

EMMA ALBERICI: OK, for those who haven't read it, tell me.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: We come from a very clear - a very clear perspective. Our moral compass is not based on political expediency. Assad has been slaughtering hundreds of thousands and Tony Abbott has not moved a single fighter jet to oust him from his position. How are we supposed to believe that this current mission is a humanitarian one when 300,000 ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Because we were invited in by a legitimately-elected government in Iraq.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: The question is on the matter of principles - are we seriously ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Syria is in the midst of a civil war. That is a separate conversation to the one we are discussing here.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: But that's a very convenient excuse. We're talking principles. If we're supposed to be outraged ...

EMMA ALBERICI: I am discussing with you the tactics of a group ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Of course you are.


EMMA ALBERICI: ... that is masquerading behind ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: And of course it's understandable.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... a religion which many people ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Yes.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... who follow that religion ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Yes.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... do not agree with and in fact condemn.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: And let's take the argument further. Let's take the argument further.

EMMA ALBERICI: People like community leaders here in Australia like Dr Jamal Rifi, who has publicly condemned the actions of Islamic State. Why won't you do the same?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: My clear position is that we took a clear position on ISIS long before Western politicians wanted to make - wanted to use ISIS as the latest bogeyman. Let's not forget that a million people lost their lives based on a lie, based on a lie. Let's not forget the whole charade around the weapons of mass destruction.

EMMA ALBERICI: I don't think - I don't think people forget that and there have been courts and commissions ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Tony Abbott is wanting us to believe that the greatest threat to all of us is the actions of a group, of a handful of individuals and no-one wants to discuss what has caused the death of a million civilians in Iraq.

EMMA ALBERICI: Are you outraged by - are you outraged by the image of an Australian-born child of seven years old holding up severed heads like trophies in Iraq or Syria?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Let me tell you what I am outraged by.

EMMA ALBERICI: So you won't even answer that question.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Are you going to allow me to answer - are you going to allow me to answer the question?

EMMA ALBERICI: What are the Australian public to make of this kind of ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: If you wanted a one-way discussion ...

EMMA ALBERICI: No. I think you're the one who wanted the one-way discussion.


WASSIM DOUREIHI: If you wanted a one-way discussion, you would not - you did not - you did not necessarily have to invite me.

EMMA ALBERICI: I am asking you legitimate questions ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: You're asking the question, baiting for a particular response.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... which you have obviously come here knowing you didn't want to answer.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: No, you've come to push a particular view. Because you're not getting the answer you want ...

EMMA ALBERICI: No, I've come here to ask you answers so you can ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Because you're not getting the answer you want.

EMMA ALBERICI: I just want - in many cases I just want a yes or no.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Let me make it very clear: you've invited me on to this platform to express my views.

EMMA ALBERICI: Yes!

WASSIM DOUREIHI: You're not allowing me to do that.

EMMA ALBERICI: But you want to express your views quite separate to the questions that I'm putting to you.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I'm answering the question that I deem appropriate.

EMMA ALBERICI: Let me ask you a different question and let's see if you might engage with that one. Your group is calling for a caliphate governed by sharia law. What would that look like in Australia?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: This is the absurdity of this entire discussion. Why is the focus, given the context of the war on terror, entirely upon what Muslims are doing or not doing? Why are we...?

EMMA ALBERICI: OK, let me ask you another one.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: No, no, let me be very clear.

EMMA ALBERICI: OK, you're not going to engage with that one.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: No, no, no, no, let me be very clear: just because you don't get the answer you want, just because I'm not reinforcing an Islamic-phobic narrative that justifies the


wholesale slaughter of entire populations ...

EMMA ALBERICI: You can dispel any supposed phobia out there ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: No, I'm explaining the context in which this entire discussion is happening.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... by putting a line in the sand and giving people a yes or a no about what your position is.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: All your doing - all your doing is reinforcing the view - we can continue - we can continue to talk over each other. Your job is to ask the questions and to listen to my response. If you wanted to push an agenda, let's swap seats. If you wanted to communicate a position ...

EMMA ALBERICI: But my job is not to ask questions ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Of course it is.

EMMA ALBERICI: ... and have you answer something entirely different.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Your job is to ask the question and to canvass my opinions. That's why I was introduced into this program. If you wanted to dictate my response, if you wanted to dictate terms of acceptability, then take my position. But ask me a question and at least afford me the respect and the opportunity to answer it. I come from a very clear point of view that as Muslims we have a fixed moral compass that says it's unequivocally, under any conditions, it's an aberration to kill innocent civilians. Tony Abbott cannot say that. John Howard dismissed ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Who do you consider - who do you consider ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: the slaughter of half a million - dismissed the slaughter of half a million civilians as an embarrassment.

EMMA ALBERICI: OK, let's nut down ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Let's talk about morality here. Let's talk about who is the greatest threat to civilian life.

EMMA ALBERICI: I think people are very clear of your point of view. They're clear on that point of view. You've expressed it a number of times.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Yes. And what's my message?

EMMA ALBERICI: Now let me ask you this: ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: My message is: this is where the discussion needs to be.


EMMA ALBERICI: Will you take this opportunity now to urge young Muslim men here in Australia not to join Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: And I'll answer in the exact same way. The war on terror narrative works in this way: it presents the West as the good guy and Muslims as the bad guy and we are what represents an existential threat to the entire world. That's an absurdity. It is not Muslims who are flying B-52s. It is not Muslims who are dropping bombs from their fighter jets. It is not Muslims who are occupying foreign lands! Don't come to me ...

EMMA ALBERICI: But it is Islamic State fighters who are killing Muslims ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: No, don't come to me and pretend that the greatest threat to all of us ...

EMMA ALBERICI: They're killing Christians, they're murdering Kurds.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: We're talking about - I'm glad you raised that point. Do you know why? Because how are we expected to believe that the West is concerned about the life of minorities when it is the majority that is being slaughtered? How are we supposed to take those arguments seriously? How are we supposed to take the moral compass seriously when people like Madeleine Albright dismisses lives of half a million or a million through sanction ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Will you answer just one question that I ask you?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I'm answering very clearly because - just because ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Specifically addressing the question I'm asking you?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I'm not answering the question.

EMMA ALBERICI: Can do me a favour? But will you do me a favour and ask - answer one question?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I'm doing the public - I'm doing the public a great favour by refocusing this discussion where it needs to be. Ask yourselves very clearly: the Australian public - I believe in the Australian public more than Tony Abbott does. I believe that as human beings they will ...

EMMA ALBERICI: What do you think the Australian public will make ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: ... identify with innocent life taken wrongly anywhere around the world.

EMMA ALBERICI: What will the Australian public make of the fact that you will not ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: They understand this point.


EMMA ALBERICI: What will the Australian public make of the fact that you will not sit here and tell your fellow Muslim men not to join Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: I believe 100 per cent that the Australian public will see through the rhetoric. Tony Abbott and others who adopt his script are famous for their dog-whistle politics, are famous for their policies around marginalisation and xenophobia. That's not a - that's not some great, new revelation. They campaign on this basis specifically because they don't want to confront the truth, and the truth is it is not Muslims who are occupying foreign lands, it is not Muslims who are killing millions of civilians and it is not Muslims who are shaking hands with barbaric tyrants ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Where are we occupying foreign lands?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Barbaric tyrants.

EMMA ALBERICI: Where are we occupying foreign lands?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: After 300,000 lives have been lost in Syria ...

EMMA ALBERICI: OK, now I'm engaging with your comments. Where are we - where are we ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Iraq, Afghanistan.

EMMA ALBERICI: We're not occupying Iraq.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Supporting an international architecture that enslaves entire populations.

EMMA ALBERICI: We're not - we're not - we're not occupying Iraq.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: You can place whatever spin you like. We live it, we experience it.

EMMA ALBERICI: The democratically-elected government in Iraq has invited us in.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: We experience it. And that's why as a Muslim ...

EMMA ALBERICI: Isn't that a little different to occupying ...

WASSIM DOUREIHI: ... I'm telling the Australian public the reality of what this government is doing in our lands. We live it. It's not an academic exercise. It's not about ...

EMMA ALBERICI: No, you're living in Australia. You're an Australian resident, you're an Australian citizen.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: It's not about point-scoring.


EMMA ALBERICI: You're not living anything in Iraq.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: The Australian public needs to know - we need to have an honest conversation about what this government doing in your name and it is frightening. John Howard dismissed half a million lives ...

EMMA ALBERICI: And what are Islamic - what are Islamic - what are Islamic State fighters doing in your name?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: ... as a mere embarrassment and he did it in the people's name, in the people's name. And this is the dilemma: you want the focus, you want the world to believe that what is of greatest concern is what a handful of individuals are doing in response, in response to what is being done upon them?

EMMA ALBERICI: Sounds like there's about 30,000. There are about 30,000 now, we're being told. That's hardly a handful.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Let's talk about the other side. Let's talk about - let's talk about the fact that they exist as a reaction to what exists on the ground. And what exists on the ground? Foreign occupation, political repression.

EMMA ALBERICI: Does that justify beheading? Does that justify the slaughter of innocents?

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Does that justify the subjectivity around this discussion? Why don't you condemn what the Australian Government is doing? Why don't you condemn what the American Government is doing? Why don't you condemn the innocent killing of a million lives in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why don't you do that? Why don't you hold the Government to account?

EMMA ALBERICI: We're out of time. We're out of time, surprise.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: Very conveniently.

EMMA ALBERICI: Well, we are out of time. We don't have an infinite amount of time to talk to you. But thanks for coming in nonetheless.

WASSIM DOUREIHI: It is my pleasure.


Attachment BComplainant’s submissionsThe complainant submitted the following to the ABC on 14 October 2014:

I feel strongly that the fashion in which this interview was conducted on Emma's part was an absolute disgrace. Emma did not afford her guest the respect and decency afforded Australian politicians and other guests that appear on the program. I feel the tactics employed by Emma during the interview exhibited the characteristics of prejudice, racism and discrimination. I feel Emma gave the perception to Lateline viewers and the Australian public that it is acceptable to aggressively combat Muslims that don't buy into the prevailing media narrative that a tiny minority thousands of kilometres away represent an existential threat to our safety in Australia. The interview was a clear exhibition of keyhole journalism more befitting US state sponsored media outlets. I feel Emma's approach crossed the line into racism and marginalisation because she does not act that way when Anglo Saxon politicians obfuscate her questions.


Attachment CBroadcaster’s submissionsThe ABC responded to the complainant on 14 October 2014 as follows:

Your concerns have been investigated by Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit which is separate to and independent of program making areas within the ABC. We have reviewed the broadcast and assessed it against the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality.

The adversarial or ‘devil’s advocate’ style of interviewing, employed at times by Emma Alberici, can generate a strong and mixed reaction from the public. Part of the technique of the ‘devil’s advocate’ approach is to take major points of criticism from various sources and put them to the interviewee for response. This can sometimes give the audience the impression that these are the personal views of the interviewer. This is not the case.

When she is doing a one-on-one interview, she has a duty to conduct a testing interview that does not allow the interviewee to use the occasion as a political platform. It is her duty to put other points of view to the interviewee and her responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the questions are answered.

Having reviewed the interview against the impartiality standards of the ABC Code of Practice, Audience and Consumer Affairs is satisfied it is in keeping with those standards. Every question posed to Mr Doureihi was relevant and based strictly on news value and he was afforded ample opportunity to respond to the questions that were asked. We are satisfied the interview was suitably courteous and respectful.

Lateline is a current affairs program that seeks to provide context and analysis of major news stories, and we are satisfied that it is the role of the program to test and examine the philosophy, intentions and public statements of Mr Doureihi’s group, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The ABC made the following submissions to the ACMA on 9 February 2015:

Lateline sought an interview with a Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman to seek that group’s reaction to Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s comments that he wanted to see the organisation banned: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2014/s4103156.htm . This was a genuine and open-minded attempt to present principal relevant perspectives on the contentious issue of whether Hizb ut-Tahrir supports terrorism and, in particular, the recent activities of Islamic State.

The questions put to Wassim Doureihi during the interview were all pertinent to these issues, extending a fair opportunity to Hizb ut-Tahrir to state its position. Mr Doureihi deflected all questions on this subject put to him by the interviewer.

The interviewer moved to a different subject, asking what a caliphate governed by sharia law would look like in Australia. This is commonly understood to be Hizb ut-Tahrir’s political objective. Mr Doureihi obfuscated and did not answer the question.

Changing tack in an effort to clarify the group’s views, the interviewer engaged with claims made by Mr Doureihi and questioned their factual basis.

It is unfortunate that this interview failed to shed light on Hizb ut-Tahrir’s views on terrorism, the tactics of Islamic State, or what would happen if it achieved its political


ambitions in this country. This failure was not, however, the product of a lack of impartiality on the part of the interviewer. On the contrary, the interviewer made repeated and persistent efforts to have her questions answered, showing a genuine interest in eliciting the group’s views.


Documents

media/Broadcasting... Web viewInclusion of the word ‘due’ indicates an element of ... Abbott has not moved a single fighter jet to oust him ... State fighters who are killing