The War On False Equivalence

Hello and welcome to Fourth Estate, a show about journalism. We're coming to you from the studios of Tiwisia and Sydney on the Gadigal lands of the Eora Nation, right across Australia on the Community Radio Network and directly to your device across the globe via podcast. I'm Tila Green, thanks so much for joining me. This week the International Criminal Courts Chief Prosecutor announced his intention to apply for arrest warrants for top leadership in the Israeli government and those working for Hamas.

Today, Christian will be applied for warrants to the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court in relation to three individuals that are Hamas members. You have also issued warrants against the top political and military leadership of the government of the state of Israel. We've applied for warrants, of course the judges must determine whether or not to issue them but we've applied today, we'll apply for warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu and also Minister of Defense Grant for crimes of causing extermination, causing starvation as a method of war including the denial of humanitarian relief supplies, deliberately targeting civilians in conflict and... That was the ICC's Chief Prosecutor, Kevin Kahn speaking there with CNN's Christian Harman Paul.

The charges are for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the October 7th attack on southern Israel and Israel's subsequent war on Gaza. The United States and the United Kingdom has attacked the decision with President Biden saying it's created a false equivalency between the Israeli government and Hamas's leaders. It's a view seemingly shared by the Australian government to express support for the ICC's role but again denied an equivalency exists between Israel and Hamas. The issue of false equivalencies has been a common accusation during this conflict from both sides and it does not seem to be letting up.

This week we're joined by Geraldine Duke, our renowned Australian journalist and broadcaster with Experience in Print, TV and Radio mostly with the ABC. For the past 19 years her focus has largely been on international affairs. She's presented Saturday Extra on ABC Radio National from 2005 until late last year. She's now the co-host of Global Roming with Hamish McDonald, a radio programme and podcast on ABC RN.

Geraldine, welcome back to Father's Night. Thank you, Tina. You're running to lose also with us. He's the National Affairs Editor for 10 News First.

He was previously a foreign correspondent and he's worked with both the Nine Network in Australia and overseas for CNN. You, thanks for joining us. Hi, Tina. And Sophie McNeil, who was previously an investigative reporter with the ABC's Four Corners.

She was then the public broadcaster's middle ace correspondent based in Jerusalem from 2016 to 2018. She then spent five years with Human Rights Watch as a researcher and she's now a Human Rights and Climate Campaigner with the Greens party. Welcome Sophie. Thanks for joining us.

Thanks for having us. Joining us, what was your reaction when you first heard the ruling? I was intrigued by the timing of it. I was intrigued by the linking of the two.

I was mildly depressed by the reporting of it because in fact if you go into it there's lots of detail that is very interesting. I listened to Christiana Amman Paul's interview with Karen Khan, the prosecutor, but I've sort of come to the moral as expected in this particular set of conflicts detail that might add to the intriguing sort of multi-dimensional nature of it all very rarely gets through. So look, I thought it was an interesting timing. I think it's a squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, squeeze on the Netanyahu government by all sorts of people to make it break, which I'm hoping it will.

That's what I mean. But we get some sort of new era that can do much better compromising. Yeah. Well, I wasn't surprised and I wasn't really surprised by the reaction to it.

Well, I thought it has split the lines even more deeply. So when you see Biden, for example, who was trying to carry this political balancing act where he was conscious of being warned that he was in danger for his reelection prospects in being too pro-Israel because of the size of the Arab voter, particularly in key parts of the United States, swing states, battleground states like Michigan, for example, for him to come out so strongly and describe the court decisions and outrage with no other US Congress on both sides of the aisle, talking about sanctioning and staff members from the International Criminal Court for daring to take any kind of action against not just the US, but any of its allies. Anytime into the future, which means that presumably it's an actual criminal court, they've had a crack in Australia, for example, but theoretically, the United States could put sanctions against the International Criminal Court. There seems to have been some unhinging of the level of response to it on that side.

I think that the actual seeking of the warrants by prosecutors, and that's where it is just at the moment, it's not a judgement as yet from the ICC, is utterly unsurprising. I think people can watch what happened. The October 7 attacks were appalling and were plainly crimes on an enormous nature and would attract the interest of an international criminal court. I think there are grounds given the level of civilian deaths where people might feel that there is evidence, the prosecutor playing, he does, that a range of things, including use of starvation as a weapon of war, which is a war crime, has been what we've been witnessing.

And so it's still has to be played out, but it's unsurprising the prosecution of the ICC with one action on it. But I mean, the level of attacks that we've seen against the ICC from countries that previously would have supported many of their previous decisions and rulings. Were you surprised by that sort of, the attacks we're saying from the United States government, the United Kingdom? And Australia, I mean, Peter Dutton is saying it is one of the most shameful acts for Australia, shameful by Anthony Urban Easy, that he hasn't taken a position that is more closely aligned to that of the US Republicans, of actually rejecting and repudiating what the ICC has come up with in that it is seeking these warrants for the prosecutors against Netanyahu and the defence minister, as well as the three leading figures of Hamas.

Look, I do think it is politics rather than law that we're seeing, and the politics seems, the Gulf seems to get ever larger. Sophie, you've spent a number of years reporting on the region. Were you at all surprised by the decision this week and also the coverage that followed? I was surprised because we had been waiting for this moment for a long time and we heard rumours it was coming, but I couldn't quite believe it because we have never seen a Western allied government charged with such crimes by the ICC.

So it's a real watershed moment in international law. And while I was hoping it was going to come, I was worried that the prosecutor, Karim Khan, would succumb to the incredible pressure that we've seen asserted on him by the Biden administration. And it's, you know, for people like myself who are so passionate about upholding international law and holding people to account, it was a really amazing day to finally see those applications put in by the prosecutor. And it is unusual for them, I'm not to result in charges, I'll point that out, but yes, those charges haven't been laid yet.

But this application was a massive massive moment for international law. And I think it gave us some hope that there could be justice and accountability. And I would like to just say, I don't think there is a linking of the two, I mean, between the charges against the Hamas leaders and the Netanyahu government members, Netanyahu himself and his defence minister. What you had was the court by putting applications to charge these individuals with separate crimes, each for their own wrongful conduct.

They didn't link them. I mean, imagine the outrage, it had just been one or the other. Law crimes by one side, never justified law crimes by the other. And the ICC did the right thing by holding both the state party to account and the non-state party.

And I think what needs to be pointed out is that, you know, the one set of application for charges is against the leaders of an outlawed terrorist group, Hamas. And the other is for members of a government that claims to be a democracy and a government that Australia, the Elbenese government describes as a friend. So I think that should really be pointed out in the coverage. And I haven't seen that point, I don't know.

In terms of the Australian government's reaction, now they've supported the ICC's independence, but they have again brought up this notion of false equivalency. What were your thoughts on that? Do you think our prime minister is trying to play both sides there? I think he's clearly trying to play both sides.

And it was disappointing when he was asked the morning of the news coming out in Australia, his thoughts on that. And he said, oh, I don't comment on court proceedings, which we all know. We've seen him comment on court proceedings. He's commented on Assange's proceedings, which we know another big news story this week.

So, you know, I think that was really cowardly. And I think it was pleasing to see a few hours later a much stronger statement come out from DFAT and from Minister Wong's office saying that they, you know, that Australia would respect the independence of the court. And I think that that is critical. You know, we're either a government who stands for international law, justice and accountability, or we side with what's going on with the US and UK at the moment, which is shocking.

I mean, we really do need the rules at the moment of this world. And to see the way the Biden administration has attached to the ICC, it is deeply alarming. And quite stunning to think that President Biden is choosing to stay with Netanyahu over the chances of his own reelection as well. Kind of blows your mind.

Mm. Geraldine, will this be, has this decision sort of set the time of what you'll be covering this week on global roaming? Yes. We did interview a man called Julian Borgia, who's in town for the Writers Festival, who is the Guardian's chief political correspondent based in Washington.

In fact, he's written a book, he's a Jewish background, an extremely moving story indeed about his father being sent as an 11 year old boy from Vienna with an advertisement placed in a paper. I seek a kind, a place in English papers by his mother. I seek a kind person who will take in my intelligent boy. I mean, it's almost heartbreaking.

So, so that's from 42, I think. And he came to England and became an academic, you know, was taken in by a Welsh world and became an academic and Julian is the son. We are covering it. Look, I think, I suppose for me, I really like people who, and respect people who know that you've got to sit with about five different balls in the air in this whole issue with none of them easily landing and often colliding.

And I think it's very difficult for a lot of people who want simplicity and who want certainty and who want sort of definite emotional responses that they can live with themselves. And I just think it defies that at the moment. And so I sort of feel the detail of what is the various details that are occurring in this story like Benny Gantz and the Galant that who is cited in the ICC claim, who's the defence minister coming out virtually having a revolt against Netanyahu received much less coverage than say this ICC report. And yet, you know, in terms of consequential is the word of the moment.

You know, things that matter, I think it's terribly important. The economist is written as this is a revolt of the generals underway in Israel, which could really affect the turn of events. And you know, people like Gantz, Benny Gantz, who probably would be prime minister of those a new election, talking about warning Israelis that they've got to be careful of the zealots and the messianic Jews in their midst. Now, this is a very, very interesting reference to Jewish history.

The zealots, you know, basically brought Israel to its knees against the Romans 1900 years ago when they simply would not give up and didn't care how many of their compatriots they took with them. And there's Gantz referring to it vividly and suggesting to Israelis that they be careful of this. And you're Australian media cover that at all? No, you know, the lack of nuance in this I find very hard to take.

But I'm very interested in history because I just think often that's what really starts to alter a vexed conflict like this, which I just simply do not think is easy to solve. You just going off what Geraldine's just said about the lack of nuance. Do you think that's really one of the many perils about covering this region and its many conflicts that have been ongoing over the last number of years? I covered Israel first time I think in 1986, the election that Netanyahu won that killed off the Oslo piece of work, it appeared to have been making progress at that time and I've plainly taken a lot of interest, traveled back the numerous times since.

And this is unquestionably a conflict on a level, some have said since the War of Independence for Israel back in 1948, but certainly since the Six Day War, this is an absolute changer. And the difference with the past is that communities who are closely identified and identified themselves with different sides of this conflict are now broadly based and established in Australian society. And we have the freedoms of the streets to some of the Jewish sides and they don't have completely the freedom of the streets, but nevertheless we see protests on the streets, we see a lot of digital activity, we see the activities that are going on on campus. So it's inescapable.

On my level, Geraldine is saying it's quite right, there's a lot of nuance that's missing in this, but there's also more coverage, the times allow for and the scale of the conflict and it's difficult to bring you to any kind of solution. These are at levels that we haven't seen before, there's no easy answer to it. And so the terrible horror is that there is no pathway to a lasting solution that's practically on foot across the Middle East. So everyone knows in the end that if peace has ever come, it has to involve two states living in it.

It could be a cold peace, but some sort of peace. And that's the only prospect for them being any good to come out of any of this. But it is broken down on both sides and I don't know how that will get unscrambled for years to come. So that's a deep tragedy for everyone.

I think one of the things that you look back to the 9-11 attacks, some of it is aimed at the United States by inducing it into a war with Islam, global Islam. And to a large degree, he did weaken the United States. The wars in Afghanistan and particularly in Iraq that followed from 9-11, it reduced the United States in the position in the world and I think has removed a lot of the confidence within the United States for better or worse about its ability to assert itself in the world. And we wait to see what their election result might be at the end of the year.

What Hamas was deliberately trying to do as it saw in Israel was both fighting a deal with Saudi Arabia was to try to use the frankirk line from House of Cards. If you don't like the way the table is set turn over the table, they turn over the table on October the 7th. And people, and to agree that they are being rewarded is total destruction of Gaza. But now we've got these countries Norway and Ireland and I was now looking at recognizing a state of Palestine that Israel is discombobulated and is more split than ever, Netanyahu to take Geraldine's point if there was an election would be gone for money tomorrow.

So, you know, violence of the worst kind is getting a kind of a reward, but over the graves of tens of thousands of people and that's all for the world. But many would argue the exact opposite to that. So that point of Hamas has egged Israel on and is now getting the reaction that seemingly wanted. And I think the point that by saying that Israel has egged Hamas on, you know, with their historic treatment of Palestinians living in the region.

And now this cycle of violence continues. Violence keeps getting that with violence. Well, I think a point is right. There's plenty of evidence that because it's come out of his own mouth that Netanyahu wanted to bolster Hamas because he knew that he could, he then wouldn't have to make any peace deals with Palestine because Hamas is so much on the nose that they will never go to agree to anything.

So therefore, that never has to be resolved. And I think to go to Geraldine's point also earlier, there has been the extremist Zionist element has done Israel a terrible disservice. They have, particularly on the West Bank, just made more and more claims, these little, you know, say, competitive little, it's not invasions per se, but just the daily weekly monthly bites out of Palestinian territory, the constant pressure on the security, the daily security of Palestinian people, forget Gaza on the West Bank alone, has rendered the Palestinian people a such a fit of dismay, the prospect that anything is ever going to be allowed to them. Then it feeds into the extremists.

So yes, it's it's extremists love extremists on the other side. They feed off each other and the center gets lost. You listening to Fourth Estate on the Community Radio Network, my guests are Geraldine Durke, Remington and Sophie McNeil, we are talking about this week's announcement from the ICC to apply for arrest warrants for both Israel and Hamas leaders. So you out of our panel have reported probably most recently within the region of the Middle A's.

From your perspective, how fraught has that always been? Yeah, well, I first went to Gaza in 2007 and pretty much reported from there every year until 2018. And it was horrific to bear witness to the condition of the people inside Gaza during that time as the siege began and how Gaza became the world's largest prison. You know, and people couldn't get anywhere out.

And I did stories about mothers dying of breast cancer because they had never been given permission by the Israeli authorities to leave to receive treatment at Palestinian hospitals in Jerusalem. I did endless stories about the children and how many wars they had encountered and the absolute fear that they had in their everyday lives, their lack of ability to sleep, you know, the destroyed people destroyed lives. And to think that that all came before now, you know, I have my fixer, I'm right at Alathamna who I've worked with since 2007, who I stay in touch with on a daily basis now. He was a fixer face based news and he worked with me when I was at the ABC from 2015 to 2018.

And the story is, you know, it's one of it really does civilize what's happened to Gaza, you know, right, had horrific incident 2006 where the Israeli army shelled his family compound and he lost 19 members of his family in an incident that the IDF later apologized for and said that it was a miscalculation and accident built a new house and in 2009 that new house in Beethoven was destroyed by the Israeli military and he lost his car, he's only saw some income. And so by the time I went back in 2015 and I got to see it out all the time because I was based in Jerusalem for the ABC and I tried to give him as much work as I could. He was a broken mat, absolutely broken. He'd seen so much death and destruction and had lost so much personally.

And then now this past war, he's barely there. He's not living, he's just trying to look after the 60 family members that he has to try to feed as the eldest son. He's got eight kids himself and they've all got kids and he's got brothers and sisters. They've they've fled so many times in the last few months.

They've been living in a tent in Rafa since they were forced out of Han Yunus and they lost the few little bits that they'd set up there in their tents there. We helped them buy some new tents in Rafa but they were living in sand, they didn't have enough food. And they made the terrifying decision to flee to Rafa about 10 days ago and they're now in the outskirts of Han Yunus again and they have no food and no water. And so I get daily messages from Rafa.

And this is a man who's really helped bring stories from Gaza to the people of Australia. You know, there's a lot we wouldn't know about Gaza because it wasn't for a man like Rafa. So it's devastating, it's horrifying. And I think it says a lot that I've left journalism after witnessing all that.

And I now, you know, I work for Human Rights Watch, which really has done a stellar job, I think telling the truth about what's going on in Gaza during this conflict. You know, and I'm now running for the Greens because I, you know, in my way that this is a party that has stood up and called what is happening in Gaza for what it is. So, you know, I've witnessed all that and I've come to the conclusion that it's so horrifying that I want to be on the right side of history to do something to try and uphold international law and ensure people's rights are upheld and not aware they are, Tina. So it's Gaza is a place I care about deeply, you know, it's a place I can connect with and communicate with every day.

And you know, I just take a lot of hope from the incredible movement we've seen around the world of people standing up to say that, you know, enough is enough. We can't accept the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians like this, you know, more than 10,000 children, I mean, the numbers up in 13, 14,000 now. It's been a horrific exhausting seven months, but it's absolutely nothing compared to Palestinians in exile of gone through what dozens are going through. So, you know, it's a horrible, horrible time.

It sounds like you were very affected by your work in the region and it's informed the course that your life has taken away from journalism. Absolutely. Yeah. I think sector say.

Did you find that you were your work? Did you feel that you were often criticized for being an advocate rather than a journalist? Did you feel that you were criticized for as having a bias? So when you're working in a place like Jerusalem, you know, as an Australian journalist, you know, there was one of me.

By the time I got to Jerusalem, there was no cameraman anymore. I had to see what would have to drive out the office. It was me working out of my home basement, doing all my own filming as a video journalist, working with a brilliant local producer, but you're doing about five to ten jobs. You're doing AMPM, Radio News, 730, TV News, you're tweeting, you're live logging, you're writing online articles, and then you've got about dozens of dozens of people who are paid on staff in Australia and trying to find mistakes in your work, trying to find things to complain about.

And I was very proud that my whole time in the Middle East, I never had a complaint up held against me because I was so careful with the facts and I worked with the FSB as I've been working in the Middle East, I've lived in Lebanon, I've been there since 2007. So I knew my stuff, but it's very intimidating. And I had a member of parliament takeout ads against me, used tax pay, money and put that in the Australian Jewish News and attacked me. It was horrible, really horrible, but I could stand it because I was tough and I knew I always relied on the facts and never had a complaint up held against me.

But reporters coming after me, I think probably saw how I was treated and I think they are. They do get worried about calling a fact. I look at some of the ABC reporting these days and there was a line in an online article recently where it said that the Greens have accused Israel of ignoring the intro mortars of the ICJ. It's not the Greens saying that.

It's a fact. Israel is ignoring the intro mortars of the ICJ. I think we need to get a lot better calling facts facts and there's too much passive voice I think in the reporting of this conflict. And it's unlike any other thing you'll report on.

You'll just get a right story about any other country, any other political topic and you won't get the attention you get on this issue. And I think it says a lot. And I think unfortunately, I think a lot of people are not listening and watching the ABC as much as I used to because I think a lot of people have been disappointed in the coverage of this topic. And I was really keen to ask about how the conversation at the ABC has been since New York had our left citing her disappointment at the networks coverage.

I'd love to know what conversations have been going on. And if you feel like there has been a shift or some kind of internal examination since the brilliant New York left for the Guardian. Look, I think that everybody's on edge trying to actually remain impartial, which I don't know whether that, you know, I think that that's a noble aim and it's terribly, terribly hard. I think there's a great, there's a sense within the ABC of struggling to try to work out what is our role and how we do it fairly.

And there's an enormous amount of noise around which actually isn't helpful. Sort of hearing one's team members articulate how they feel they want to work, how you proceed, how young people proceed, making sure that there aren't just sole voices actually. So I think it's been, I think it's an extremely big wrestling match, internal wrestling match in the ABC to try to work out how we retain faith with the public that we are observably fair and impartial. You know, that's Kim Williams and that very good interview with Monica at Art about the importance of wrestling with impartiality.

It's hard, it's hard, but it must be observably wrestled with, in my opinion, in order to keep faith with the broad array of taxpayers. So I don't think that'll satisfy you, Sophie, but that's how I see it. Yeah, I do think what's really interesting, Geraldine, is that I've been spending some time at these tension catalysts at the universities and no one that I mean, you know, under 35 was watching or listening to the ABC and it's, it worries me, you know, it really makes me sad because I deeply love my ABC and if it's the ease of my life, you know, serving for the broadcaster and some very dangerous places and they're just not, yesterday, I was at Curtin University in Perth and they were going on about, you know, you go home and you're looking at these images on Al Jazeera that, you know, tearing your heart apart and have changed our lives and that was the constant refrain. No one mentions listening or watching to the ABC.

And so that does worry me that they don't see it as relevant, that they are watching this conflict on, you know, they're watching direct from the Gaza reporters on the ground. They don't think they don't feel the need to tune into the national broadcaster, that they'll gain anything or anything extra. And that really worries me because I would hate to see our ABC become irrelevant from the next generation, but on this one's like, I'm worried it is. Yeah.

I don't play the long game, Sophie. I think the ABC's job is to play the long game and we'll just see how it unfolds. I mean, because I actually, you know, where Hugh said there's simply nothing that you can observably see about us away forward. Well, I would disagree because I think that if you bought, this is my point about looking for nuance and it depends whether you just get completely overwhelmed by the horrors and they are there or whether you keep doing, which is what I think good journalism does, to look for green shoots, and if they don't exist, they don't exist.

But you know, I am fascinated by what people like Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor and Tony Blinken, the Ethic Link and the Secretary of State are just obviously working there inside out to get this deal going with the Saudis and the Emiratis, in other words, Sunni Muslims who are obviously ready to go, ready to help govern Gaza. Now, this is an extraordinary thing that's happening in the shadows. Now, it won't happen if Netanyahu and his bunch can't articulate, they're ready for some form of Palestinian sovereignty, whether it's tomorrow, whether it's two years. But that's, you know, that's a huge development that is just waiting there in the wings.

So few people even know that that's underway and you know, it may not happen. I don't know. But you know, the Saudis and the Emiratis have hung in there, let alone the Jordanians, in a way that is totally fascinating. And so, you know, to do a broad scale discussion so that there is relief for those poor people of Gaza, you've got to look more broadly than just the emotion of the horror.

And that to me is the job of good journalism. I think you have to cover all of it really. I mean, you have to cover what's happening on the grounds in rougher. To take the Sophie's point about how people drifting away, if you go to university protests, are they watching the ABC, no, they're watching Al Jazeera.

But that's a self-selecting group of people who are highly invested in this and with a particular view. There is enormous middle Australia, if you like, that is interested in it, that doesn't feel particularly well informed about it. And I think if you look at, for example, you know, Channel 10, I don't think that we would feel necessary that the metric is that we are the news producer of choice for protesters highly invested in one side of a conflict. I do think the role still exists to report facts as they come in the horrors.

And so, you know, setting a report of political developments, et cetera, that might be looking to find some kind of settlement. I think all the focus now is on a pretty short term. It's really about ceasefire and immediately afterwards. It's not about a long revolution.

That's still some way away. But I mean, there are so many other issues that are running in Australia at the moment. And people care about, you know, bail conditions for people who are alleged to go off and murder domestic partners. This immigration is running pop the budget for a total all-purpose news organization.

The ABC is a much bigger version of that than Channel 10. You know, this remains only one part of the mix of the story that we're covering. So it does surprise me greatly perturb me if we went on at the front edge of that. And if people are getting information from places like Al Jazeera because they're being closely informed about that, we're good.

Because I'd rather than get it from Al Jazeera than get it from some of the other completely disreputable sources that are kicking around and available on social media or both sides of this. You spoke previously that you feel like there's a real lack of nuance when it comes to discussing this conflict and people want a much more simple narrative. And it's been very much driven by emotion. Do you think there was a time where there was a lot more nuance that was, I guess, injected into discussions around this ongoing conflict that's been going on for decades?

You know, and I think back to a lot of the reporting that you did with ABC television, the Gulf Report, the war of words during the Gulf War, do you feel like that allowed for much more nuance in discussion of this region? That's a very good question, Tina. I was thinking that actually the Vietnam War, which I remember, which also was sort of defied easy understanding. And you could almost be able to say, please give me a simple thing I can hang on to so that I know where I stand.

And it just divided. But I think there was more. I think we came to understand there were a lot of component parts of that story, actually, better. I think you're right.

I think first Gulf War. There was quite a lot of nuance, my Jew. I don't think there was after the second Gulf War. Look, I think this one is terribly difficult.

It's so exhausting. It's so multifaceted. I think Tom Friedman, you know, the New York Times guy who I just think is just one to watch. I just so admire the journalism that Tom Friedman is doing.

I mean, he's well and truly in there. He is, I think anyway, I'm up to know actually what the others think. He's pulling off this quinilla of being a player in terms, I think he's read incredibly widely throughout the region and yet bringing you lots of new material as well. But he's very much for solution.

He's a solution-oriented journalist and he loves. He loves Israel. He wants the future for Israel, but he certainly alert to its foibles and its faults. But he's been a very interesting one to watch because he's taking such huge risks.

I mean, I couldn't take the risks that Tom Friedman is taking to be both commentator and yet important conveyor of material that I think, oh, God, we've gone there. Have we, right? Okay. Let me follow that up if you see what I'm saying.

So I think it takes great skill at the moment to have all these balls in the air and do it, you know, just in the way what? You're first and second pass. You can see people distilling it, you know, it's sort of, it's miniaturization in order to be straightforward. And often I think as a result misleading.

But I don't envy the people who are doing it, you know, right on the front line. And I look at people like Lucidou set for the BBC or Olegarron. Oh, God, she does some beautiful reporting for the BBC. The more reported from years ago, beautiful sort of human interest.

That's the right, I would argue. But nuance showing that the turn of events now. Yeah, there aren't many I admire out of this. I've got to tell you.

But obviously often their desks don't want this new one. So I can feel it. You know, the desk at home, the foreign desk is, oh, don't give me that. Give me a lovely clear first part.

Can I just do one thing I think that's really interesting is what we've seen with this conflict is also the decolonizing of journalism. I think what is very interesting for younger generations is that they don't need your least two sets of the world anymore. You know, your Trump Freedmen's, you know, they are following these guards and journalists on Instagram and they're seeing it firsthand. And you know, these journalists have now got millions of followers.

People refer to them by their first names, you know, Motaz, YL, Plasty and Distan, you're not supposed to be silent, you haven't posted for two days. It's the sun, okay? You know, we're just sounding a family. And you know, literally like there's amazing, amazing guards and journalists because no foreign journalists have been laid in.

So I think actually any discussion of this conflict and how it's been covered has to send to them. And I think it's fascinating that you don't, in some ways, you know, people are not going through your ABCs or your New York Times or even your Guardians. They're going straight to the person on the ground who is showing them doesn't even need any commentary. Some of what's happening and I find that fascinating.

And I think that's really going to shift the way storytelling is done and it's been a massive change. And you know, 105 journalists killed in Gaza, the most killed in any conflict in such a short period of time. I mean, it's devastating and horrifying. I guess the last question I'd like to put to all of you.

And so I think I definitely take note of what you're saying in terms of the journalists, the guards and journalists on the ground and how it seems, there's, I guess it's sort of a new media coming up. But there is the establishment media that there are, you know, they still have viewers. They still do have eyes on them. And what I do want to ask is the role of interest groups.

And I think the ABC, I think there's a very interesting discussion to be had around, especially what we've seen in the last six months around the influence of interest groups and the ABC's run into a bit of trouble here. But, Geraldine, I guess I get your response first as someone still with the public broadcaster. Yes. And someone, by the way, he's probably maybe fallen.

I think you've had your own experience with interest groups being in their vision. It's not a fun experience. There's no doubt about that. And I'm better when you're older.

I think I was a bit of agony quite frankly around. It takes constant discussion. We discuss a lot with each other, the business of discernment, whether you put on a popular song that's around which actually has clear anti-Semitic elements as well as other things. And that gets referred up and there's a big debate about it.

I wonder if people realise how much debate is underway and wrestling with this. Look, I just think this is where I sort of feel you've got to have a certain cultural confidence that I think Kim Williams did display very well in that interview. But it doesn't mean it's easy and it means you have to open yourselves up for debate. I don't think interest groups should derail you.

I really don't. But I also accept that we can't... In fact, we know we don't have it all to ourselves. Just exactly what's so forsaken.

We know that. But that doesn't mean we then surrender and say, oh my goodness, we go over to the other side in order to get numbers. So we've just got to observably struggle. That in a way is the compact we have with our audience.

I've always said, you know, objectivity or impartiality, whether or not you achieve it, the effort to appear to try is that compact you have with your audience. And that is the sort of silken thread, if you're not a mean which we mustn't lose. And well, it's in the eyes of your listeners. What do we mean by Daniel?

Well, not. It's really interesting because I think the ABC has a particular difficult use of public broadcast. There are so many avenues by which an interest group can bring pressure to bear, you know, feeding lines to senators, at Senate estimates, hearings, obviously letters, bringing up onwards, and so on. And if you're in commercial broadcasting, as I'm a channel 10, you'd be simply, they're almost invisible.

You know, you'll get your casual gristle. But they kind of leave you alone because there are not so many tools in play with which to beat you. And so that's curious itself. I think it points to a lot of outrage, some of which is confected and strategic.

And that does put that extra pressure without any question on a public broadcaster. And it doesn't seem to apply to the centigrade commercial broadcasting. It's not because our reporting is broadly speaking, notably different in terms of the tone and the issues that are being raised. But we're able to run our race a little bit more cleanly, I suppose, and just, you know, measure our own accountability.

We're still subject to the regulator, to Aqmer, and there is some oversight from the MEW code of ethics. But we get vanishingly few complaints that goes through those avenues. And we're left to do our own devices. I don't think we're...

Well, I'm all referring to, you know, revelations and interest groups might have devised a campaign to call for someone's sacking. Yeah, so that doesn't happen for us so much because the points of leverage are not so easy, whereas they can apply that sort of stuff, or is it the ABC, people have objected to Walidah Lee, for example, on our air, because he's a Muslim who got help us. And when Muslims were on the nose for some segments of society, they would gristle and complain, but they didn't institutionally pursue him. And I think there's a difference in that there's a lot of institutional pursuit of the ABC in particular, but it doesn't tend to apply to the same degree I don't think it's commercial.

And lastly, Sophie. Yeah, I look, I think there's massive amount of pressure from these lobby groups on the ABC, you know, personally how hard it is, and I just think that the broadcaster has the standards ground. And I do think that it has, you know, I think the last few years before this most recent conflict broke up, we, you know, we did see, you know, declining our coverage from the Middle East. And not just because I left, you know, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying, I think people will warn down, you know, I think they saw the attacks on people like myself, and they went up for the fight.

And I think that, you know, these are probably really suffered from, from not getting some of the nuance that Joe and Nina's talked about that we really need to understand this conflict. So, you know, what happened, October 7 came out of the blue for that, because I hadn't had much coverage that, you know, I remember when human rights, what's your name? I was working with human rights, what's your report on apartheid, you know, accusing the Israeli government of the crime against humanity of apartheid at 212 page report documenting all the evidence of how that crime under international law was being committed because of the evidence we had collated ABC can cover it, not one, not one report, you know, and it was gushing for me at the time as a former Middle East correspondent to see my broadcast and review to cover it. But please go get a ceasefire some days soon, but the coverage doesn't stop, that the interest continues and that everyone kind of roots down the pressure and to report the facts and the truth because they speak for themselves and, you know, that the ABC can root down that pressure and get much stronger in its coverage moving forward.

Well, that's all we've got time for this week, but I'd like to thank our guests on Fort the State, Geraldine, too. Thank you. It's a terrific discussion, Tina. Hugh Remington.

Thank you very much, Tina. And Sophie McNeil. Thanks, Tina and Chiaolte and Hugh. Lovely to be in the same conversation with you guys.

And thank you for listening to the program. This edition of Fort the State was recorded at the studios of TOCR and heard across the country on the Community Radio Network. Fort the State is produced with the assistance of the Community Broadcasting Foundation. A big thanks to the foundation for their continuing support.

Make sure you subscribe to Fort the State on your favourite podcast app, so you can hear us talk about media, politics and everything else in between. We'll be back with more next week, of course, but in the meantime, you can keep and touch with us on Twitter. Our handle is Fort the State, AU. I'm Tina Quinn, stay well, stay safe and we'll catch you next week on Fort the State.