Jean John writes: Laura Tingle is right when she states that this country is racist. Racism is embedded in many institutions. How could anyone following the inquest into the death of Kumanjayi Walker state that racism isn’t widespread within the NT Police Force? That is on top of the excessive incarceration of First Nations peoples, deaths in custody and the ongoing removal of Indigenous children from their families.
It is uncomfortable for the rest of us to face up to our history and what is happening still today. Unless we do, we will never make progress. Laura Tingle has helped us to have the conversation that most would rather not have.
With regard to the manufactured outrage concerning her comment by the Coalition and some of the media, they are the very ones championing freedom of speech when it suits them. Laura made these comments as an individual and not as a representative of the ABC. I find it appalling that the ABC has caved in again to the Murdoch press and those politicians looking for any excuse to show outrage at the ABC.
Joanna Mendelssohn writes: I notice that the same people who claim Australia is not a racist country also decry the rise of antisemitism. The last time I checked antisemitism is defined as hating people based on their race — so I’m not sure how that pans out.
On the claim that Laura Tingle’s comment on Australia’s racism is an opinion, not a fact, I’m really curious as to how these people define “opinion”. From what I have seen, Tingle’s opinions are based on a significant body of evidence, the kind of evidence that rational people call facts.
Ute Mueller writes: It is a typical case of shooting the messenger rather than condoning the facts. Laura Tingle, a senior journalist with the ABC, stated the obvious at a recent writers festival: that Australia is a racist country. That is the daily experience of thousands of people and we have to face that fact. Instead, all hell broke loose in Coalition circles, calling her all kinds of names.
One of her shortcomings, according to the Coalition, is that she doesn’t like Peter Dutton. She wouldn’t be on her own with that, the way he has conducted himself lately. No rational-thinking person can support him anymore.
He attacked the highest court in the world for demanding that Israel stop the horrific genocide in Gaza rather than condemning the unspeakable horror. He pushes “affordable” nuclear power for our country against all scientific and economic facts. In a more unstable world, nuclear plants are also military targets.
He further tries to divide the nation by accusing migrants of taking our houses and eating our lunches, which isn’t supported by statistics. Fact is that foreign students pay for research in our universities, so the government can spend our money on highly expensive military equipment, and migrant workers keep our farms going and help to feed the nation.
Any country that would follow the weird ideas Peter Dutton has raised lately would find itself in a very precarious situation in no time.
Colin Smith writes: Are those demanding ABC “impartiality” able to explain the distinction they make between having a legitimate opinion and being “biased”? Is a “bias”, in fact, merely an opinion that offends (them)? And is the ABC required, therefore, above all else, to avoid saying anything that might possibly offend anyone? And would the result still be worth listening to?
