5 ms·

Why do you say that the ABC intentionally misreported the situation? An ABC journalist live-tweeted the execution of the search warrant and claimed that he was

by sjy 7y ago

Why do you say that the ABC intentionally misreported the situation? An ABC journalist live-tweeted the execution of the search warrant and claimed that he was the first to live-tweet an AFP 'raid' [1], which I think is valuable public interest journalism. I thought the reporting was accurate, although the journalist's commentary does presume that the media deserves special treatment, because of its role in our democracy and the potential chilling effect of the law as written on whistleblowers. This is a fair assumption and it's obviously popular with journalists, but I think the ABC would publish a contrary view if a credible writer wanted to put it forward. [1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/backstory/investigative-journalism/2019-06-08/federal-police-raid-abc-office-john-lyons-live-tweeting/11192898 https://www.abc.net.au/news/about/backstory/investigative-jo...

stevenjohns 7y ago
Well, for one, it's not a raid. The fact that it has been presented as such is incredibly misleading. Then they tried to suggest that it was linked to the Australian government, spreading conspiracy theories about the timing - asking why it happened after the election and not before[0]. The AFP didn't wake up one day and send armed men to storm a building. After two year's worth of investigation, they gathered enough evidence to request a search warrant for a single ABC office which was granted. They then notified the ABC that they were on their way and entered without conflict to find and collect the data they wanted to take. Nobody was arrested, nobody was beaten, nobody was threatened. Nobody was even insulted during the process. The Australian Federal Police are not even allowed to access the data until ABC's lawyers have reviewed the entire process within a two week window. I'm not sure how much more democratic that can be. It's difficult for me to comment on this because I feel like I'm coming across as if I support an overreaching government. I support an extremely small government but one thing that catches me out is national security. The only role a federal government should play, in my view, is national security and I don't see a problem when they're doing exactly that in a way that dots all the i's and crosses all the t's. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-05/abc-raided-by-australian-federal-police-afghan-files-stories/11181162 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-05/abc-raided-by-austral...
- mekazu 7y ago
  National security is important, but so is whistleblowing, and the ability for journalists to protect their sources. There’s a trade off here between, and it’s worth looking at this from all angles to ensure that the AFP have the right intentions.
- sjy 7y ago
  I accept that the word 'raid' isn't ideal, but I don't think it's 'incredibly misleading' when accompanied by photos that make it quite clear there are no armed men storming the building. What word would you suggest? 'Search'? I don't think it's fair to characterise the reporting as 'spreading conspiracy theories' either, just for quoting a media spokesperson who 'described the raids as "disturbing" considering they have taken place so soon after a federal election.' This attributed comment was followed by quotes from the AFP and the relevant minister asserting their independence.

by sjy 7y ago

stevenjohns 7y ago

Well, for one, it's not a raid. The fact that it has been presented as such is incredibly misleading. Then they tried to suggest that it was linked to the Australian government, spreading conspiracy theories about the timing - asking why it happened after the election and not before[0]. The AFP didn't wake up one day and send armed men to storm a building. After two year's worth of investigation, they gathered enough evidence to request a search warrant for a single ABC office which was granted. They then notified the ABC that they were on their way and entered without conflict to find and collect the data they wanted to take. Nobody was arrested, nobody was beaten, nobody was threatened. Nobody was even insulted during the process. The Australian Federal Police are not even allowed to access the data until ABC's lawyers have reviewed the entire process within a two week window. I'm not sure how much more democratic that can be. It's difficult for me to comment on this because I feel like I'm coming across as if I support an overreaching government. I support an extremely small government but one thing that catches me out is national security. The only role a federal government should play, in my view, is national security and I don't see a problem when they're doing exactly that in a way that dots all the i's and crosses all the t's. [0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-05/abc-raided-by-australian-federal-police-afghan-files-stories/11181162 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-05/abc-raided-by-austral...

mekazu 7y ago
National security is important, but so is whistleblowing, and the ability for journalists to protect their sources. There’s a trade off here between, and it’s worth looking at this from all angles to ensure that the AFP have the right intentions.
sjy 7y ago
I accept that the word 'raid' isn't ideal, but I don't think it's 'incredibly misleading' when accompanied by photos that make it quite clear there are no armed men storming the building. What word would you suggest? 'Search'? I don't think it's fair to characterise the reporting as 'spreading conspiracy theories' either, just for quoting a media spokesperson who 'described the raids as "disturbing" considering they have taken place so soon after a federal election.' This attributed comment was followed by quotes from the AFP and the relevant minister asserting their independence.