When Institutions Fear Backlash, Integrity Pays the Price
So, let's talk about something that really struck a nerve this past week—the way two of Australia’s most important cultural institutions, the ABC and Creative Australia, completely fumbled their responsibilities in the face of political and public pressure. If you’ve been following the cases of Antoinette Lattouf and Khaled Sabsabi, you’ll know exactly what I mean.
First, the ABC. The Federal Court found that the ABC unlawfully terminated journalist Antoinette Lattouf over social media posts that were critical of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Let’s be clear—she didn’t breach editorial guidelines, and there were no direct instructions she ignored. Yet, after receiving complaints and knowing a critical article was about to drop in The Australian , they panicked. Rather than standing by journalistic integrity, they folded. No leadership, no backbone.
Then there’s Creative Australia. They initially dropped artist Khaled Sabsabi from representing Australia at the 2026 Venice Biennale. Why? Because his past work included images of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and again, there were questions raised in Parliament followed by—you guessed it—media pressure. Instead of supporting the very essence of what art is supposed to be—challenging, expressive, and even provocative—they caved. Only after backlash from the international arts community did they reverse that decision. Too little, too late?
Also Read:- Ariana Madix Breaks Silence on Cierra Ortega’s Racism Controversy
- Fury’s Bitterness, Dubois’ Revenge, and Usyk’s Final Test
These aren't isolated incidents. They’re part of a disturbing trend. Institutions are growing timid at exactly the time they should be brave. This is especially true when discussions involve sensitive and complex issues like Israel and Palestine. The ABC and Creative Australia chose fear over principle, silence over support, and risk-aversion over courage.
But it wasn’t always like this. Remember when the ABC stood its ground during the controversy over Russell Skelton’s appointment? Or when Stan Grant critiqued the monarchy and, despite public backlash, was not sacked? The ABC held its nerve then. So what changed?
There’s a real danger in misunderstanding the concept of “safe spaces.” It was never about shielding people from discomfort or opposing views—it was about creating an environment where marginalized voices could actually be heard. What we need now are brave spaces —places where disagreement is welcome, where difficult conversations can happen, and where institutions don’t collapse at the first sign of criticism.
This isn’t just about two individuals. It’s about whether our public institutions have the guts to stand up for diversity—not just in background, but in thought and expression. If you're going to hire people from different communities, you can’t then demand they act like sanitized versions of the status quo. That’s not diversity; that’s window dressing.
So let’s ask the real question: What do we want our national broadcaster and our cultural bodies to stand for? Comfort and conformity? Or courage and complexity?
Because when institutions fear controversy more than they value integrity, they not only fail the individuals they employ—they fail all of us.
Read More:
0 Comments