ABC Takes 18 Days to Apologise for Joking About Sodomising Gina Rinehart

The ABC Takes 18 Days to Discover the Obvious: The Gina Rinehart ‘Apology’

When “Don’t Broadcast Sexual Violence as Comedy” Needs a Policy Rewrite.

Question…

How long do you think it would take the average person to realise that broadcasting a segment about sodomising Gina Rinehart with a stick is probably beyond the pale?

I mean… would the average person need time to think about it?

Would you need a moment to weigh it up? Five minutes to consult with a friend?

Or would the average person simply watch it and think: “No. That’s grotesque. Don’t put that on television.”

Beyond the Pale

But the people running the ABC – the people who put that segment to air – aren’t your average people.

Sadly, they seem to be well below average.

Because it took them 18 days – almost 3 weeks – to finally, belatedly issue an apology to Gina Rinehart.

Eighteen days is a LONG time consulting your conscience.

Perhaps I’m being unfair.

Maybe it only took them a moment to consult their conscience. The 18 days were spent finding it.

ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks issued an apology that, bizarrely, began by noting that the ABC had nothing to apologise for.

He wrote:

“While the Ombudsman has found that the film did not breach the ABC’s editorial policies, the ABC acknowledges the episode has fallen short of community expectations.”

So the ABC hasn’t said…

We were wrong.

A segment on Race Around the World that fantasised about the sexual abuse of Australia’s richest woman was disgusting and should never have been broadcast.

They haven’t said that.

Instead, the ABC has said… you know, technically speaking, it wasn’t that bad. But, of course, community expectations being what they are…

Fell short of community expectations!

When you think about it, that’s actually quite the admission.

The ABC finally acknowledges that the Australian community has higher standards than they do.

Non-Apology

So, after making it clear that the ABC has nothing to apologise for, but that they need to apologise because, well, apparently the Australian public has no sense of humour when it comes to the sexual abuse of women, Hugh Marks writes this:

“The ABC apologises to Mrs Rinehart and to anyone else affected or upset by the publication of the film.”

Note the careful wording.

Not, we made a mistake.

Not, we were wrong and we’re sorry.

Just… sorry if Mrs Rinehart — or anyone else — was upset.

It raises the question, doesn’t it…

If it takes 18 days for the ABC to issue an apology, how many days would it take the ABC to issue a heartfelt apology?

Because, in my view, we’re still waiting.

Having gotten the apology out of the way, ABC Managing Director Hugh Marks continued:

“As part of our review of this matter, we have considered whether the guidance in the ABC Editorial Policies adequately reflects current community expectations.”

There’s that reference again to “community expectations”.

It’s starting to sound like community expectations are a bit of a bummer for the ABC.

But Hugh Marks is correct.

I think it’s fair to say there is an expectation within the community that our national broadcaster won’t put graphic descriptions of sexual violence to air as entertainment.

Call the Australian community a little… stuffy.

Shifting Standards

Hugh Marks’ statement continued,

“The ABC will amend its guidance as it applies to violence.”

I can’t wait to read the amendment.

“Note to self: Don’t joke about sodomising women.”

You think I’m joking?

Here’s what Hugh Marks told the ABC last week:

“Looking at the standards, they felt that the work didn’t contravene the standards, and looking at the standards, I can understand why they made that decision.

“That’s why we’ve had to really assess what we do out of this and we’re changing those guidelines.”

So ABC producers looked at ABC standards and found nothing in those standards that would prevent them from putting to air a description of Gina Rinehart being sodomised.

Wow.

The good news is that it won’t ever happen again.

Because ABC bosses are going to write into the fine print of ABC standards that… you know… rapey stuff is a no-go zone… just so ABC staff will know.

Marks told listeners:

“The change will reflect the fact that no individual should be the subject of comedy that is violent in its description in our programming.”

What does it say about ABC staff that you have to write that in the guidelines?

Are they that devoid of discernment? That lacking in judgement? That bereft of conscience that anything goes… unless there’s a caution in the guidelines?

Marks said,

“I think the ABC has to hold itself to a higher standard. And I think it’s really important that we make that change.”

When you define a “higher standard” as not putting to air calls for the rape of prominent women, you have to wonder.

In his written statement, Hugh Marks wrote:

“The film has been edited on the ABC’s platforms to remove the relevant material.”

Once again, note the insipid language.

They’re not removing the abhorrent material.

They’re not removing the deeply offensive material.

They’re removing the relevant material.

Now this apology — of sorts — came on the same day that the ABC’s independent Ombudsman, Fiona Cameron, found that:

“while some viewers may have found the depiction of the assault of Mrs Rinehart ‘confronting’, it did not alter the ‘overall conclusion that a reasonable audience member would be unlikely to understand the comments as a genuine endorsement, encouragement or threat of violence.'”

You have to laugh when those at the ABC — including their independent in-house ombudsman — opine on what a reasonable viewer might think.

How would anyone at the ABC know what reasonable people think?

I can’t believe the Ombudsman wrote that “some viewers may have found the segment ‘confronting’.”

Petals.

No. It’s not that some viewers may have found it confronting, it’s that MOST viewers would have found the segment disgusting.

Not the Ombudsman, it seems.

She found that:

“The ‘punch’ line of the film is a hyperbolic joke.”

Great, so now we have to explain humour to those at the ABC, as well as decency.

The Ombudsman added this:

“The remarks did not draw upon gender-based stereotypes, nor were they framed in terms of hostility towards women as a group.”

Well, that’s a big tick for the ABC.

The segment didn’t call for women as a group to have their butt holes penetrated by sticks. Only Gina Rinehart.

And somehow, that makes it okay?

Let’s be honest… the ABC’s apology was about as meaningful as a get-well card from an undertaker.

It had far more to do with minimising any potential lawsuit than with genuine contrition.

That’s your ABC, which is really THEIR ABC. You just pay to be insulted and treated like an idiot.

---

Republished with thanks to The James Macpherson Report. Images via Wikimedia Commons and GinaRinehart.com.

---

ODM Daily Commentary

Let’s be honest: the ABC’s apology was a disgrace. It took them 18 days to issue a non-apology that began by saying they had nothing to apologise for. They said the segment didn’t breach their editorial policies. They said it was just a “hyperbolic joke.” They said it didn’t draw on gender-based stereotypes. They said it was just a matter of “community expectations.”

The article from The James Macpherson Report is a brutal takedown of the ABC’s moral bankruptcy. It asks the obvious question: how long would it take the average person to realise that broadcasting a segment about sodomising Gina Rinehart with a stick is beyond the pale? The answer: instantly. But the ABC took 18 days.

The apology was carefully worded to avoid any admission of wrongdoing. “The ABC apologises to Mrs Rinehart and to anyone else affected or upset.” Not “we were wrong.” Not “we made a mistake.” Just “sorry if you were upset.” It was about as meaningful as a get-well card from an undertaker.

The Ombudsman’s finding was even more egregious. She said the segment did not breach editorial policies. She said it was a “hyperbolic joke.” She said it didn’t draw on gender-based stereotypes because it was only directed at Gina Rinehart, not women as a group. Apparently, fantasising about the sexual abuse of one woman is fine, as long as you don’t hate all women.

The ABC is now rewriting its guidelines to say that “no individual should be the subject of comedy that is violent in its description.” As the article notes, what does it say about ABC staff that you have to write that in the guidelines? Are they that devoid of discernment?

The comment section is seething. One reader calls for Gina Rinehart to sue. Another points out the hypocrisy: if the segment had targeted an ABC celebrity, there would be outrage. Another notes that Marxists have no sense of humour.

So here is the challenge: demand accountability. Defund the ABC. Refuse to accept non-apologies. And remind the national broadcaster that it is supposed to serve the Australian people, not insult them.

The ABC took 18 days to say sorry. But they still haven’t meant it.

---

Keywords: ABC apology, Gina Rinehart, sexual violence joke, Race Around the World, Hugh Marks, ABC Ombudsman, Fiona Cameron, community expectations, editorial policies, non-apology, defund the ABC, media standards, misogyny, comedy guidelines, independent review, public broadcaster, Australian community, outrage, James Macpherson, ABC accountability, media ethics