Read on Twitter
There is so much wrong with this piece that it is hard to know where to begin, but I'll give it a go. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/internal-partiality-review-set-to-leave-ita-buttrose-and-the-abc-cornered/news-story/52c70d2604a6f4cc6cc27dac11836875
First, anyone who thinks the ABC should keep the government happy by not biting the hand that feeds has no understanding of ABC independence.
Secondly, the idea that because Ita "supported" the broadcast of the program, she had somehow been given approval rights is plain wrong. ABC Boards are often given heads up and advance screenings of things to inform them. Nothing new about that and no shift of operational control
Now let's turn to the editorial review. The only "terms of reference" that existed are clearly set out in sections 3 and 4 of the report. I commissioned reviews like this all the time. There are no other secret "terms of reference".
The claim that the reviewer hasn't been operationally involved in the media is nonsense. She was an editorial adviser to the BBC Trust all the way through to 2017, regularly conducting major editorial reviews.
Finally, and most laughably, the author claims that, in a review finalised in 2019, there should have been acknowledgement made of a job the reviewer didn't have until months after the review was finalised and handed over. Clairvoyancy is apparently now an ethical prerequisite.
Let's be clear. I have no objection to old former ABC hands going public with their current views on ABC issues. How could I? I am one myself. But I think it is incumbent on all of us to get the facts right and represent them fairly.
