Dear James,
I am writing in response to your email earlier today, regarding our two-part program on Julian Assange.
Assange is an extremely polarising figure. This is evidenced by the hate mail – such as yours – that we have received from both sides of the debate since the programs were aired. Those who dislike Assange have accused us of being ‘lapdogs and propagandists’ for Assange. Those, like yourself, who support him have accused us of seeking to destroy him.
Four Corners spent more than three months on these programs, because we believed that the prosecution of Julian Assange is an extremely important story, which warrants very close examination. Our program was not intended as either a hagiography or a hatchet job. It was intended as a meticulously accurate, scrupulously researched and forensically detailed investigation of precisely what Assange is alleged by his accusers to have done. I believe it was that. It also carefully explored the legal and ethical issues surrounding his prosecution, the motivations of the Trump administration, and the dangers to press freedom and the public’s right to know, posed by his prosecution.
Your complaint deals principally with our use of the ‘Collateral Murder’ video, so I will address that in detail.
The first of our two stories opened with the Collateral Murder video. We ran a full two minutes and ten seconds of the video, which you would appreciate – as a documentary-maker yourself – is a very long excerpt to include in a 45-minute program. We aired some of the most horrific sections of the video, including the sections where the US servicemen can be heard deliberately targeting their civilian victims with instructions such as ‘Let’s shoot. Light ‘em all up. Come on, fire. Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’, laughing about it, and later commenting ‘Look at those dead bastards’.
The commentary by reporter Michael Brissenden during the airing of the video included: “(The) classified US military footage… revealed a shocking event during the war in Iraq”; and “The callous behaviour of the US troops exposed the brutality of the conflict to the world.” This was followed by interview excerpts outlining the global impact of the release of the footage, including a quote from Wikileaks Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsonn, saying “That video has since of course become iconic as testimony of the Iraq War. It’s like the napalm girl of the Vietnam War. It tells a bigger story than the video.”
Your suggestion that Four Corners ‘censored’ the video to distort the story in a way positive to the US or negative to Assange is both nonsensical and offensive. The sections of the video that we used were chosen by the producer and editor (not myself) to have maximum impact, and – combined with the commentary – to fully convey the horror of the event. I believe they did so. The fact that we didn’t air the sections you referred to is immaterial, and to suggest it reflects an attempt by us to distort the story is bizarre and totally at odds with the reality of what we showed.
You ask in your email why we did not question Hillary Clinton about the Collateral Murder video. Hillary Clinton was not available for an interview with Four Corners for the Assange programs. The excerpts of Hillary Clinton that we used were from an earlier interview in 2017. She was not asked in that interview about the Collateral Murder video because the interview was focused on different topics.
In response to your four questions: Yes, of course we would broadcast evidence of US war crimes if we had it. No, of course we would not censor it in the way you suggest. No, we would not decide not to broadcast it for fear of extradition to the US. In response to your final question: Julian Assange is currently in a high security British prison and not contactable by journalists. We interviewed his Australian lawyer Jen Robinson, his US lawyer Barry Pollack and Wikileaks Editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsonn, to ensure we obtained Julian’s side of the story.
You refer to my tweets as evidence that I am biassed against Assange and in favour of Clinton. This is false and offensive. I have explained repeatedly that the re-tweet from two years ago was done accidentally, and that as soon as I realised I had done it, I deleted it and apologised. My twitter reference to the ‘Zombie followers’ was done in jest, because I thought that the reference was ludicrous and an indication of the ridiculously polarised debate over Assange. I am surprised that anyone would take it seriously.
I will not dignify your concluding insults with a reply, as they are rude, ill-informed and offensive. I am accustomed to having to deal with complaints about our programs, as they are frequently controversial and provocative. Thankfully, most of the complaints I have to deal with are not as nasty and personal as yours.
If you are not satisfied with my response, please feel free to contact the ABC’s department of Audience and Consumer Affairs, which is independent of the News division.
Yours sincerely,
No comments:
Post a Comment