Antoinette Lattouf told posting information from ‘reputable organisation’ online OK prior to being taken off air

Antoinette Lattouf’s former manager at the ABC agrees she told the journalist posting information to social media from a “verified source” or “reputable organisation” would be OK, before Ms Lattouf was taken off air during a fill-in radio presenting contract.

Ms Lattouf’s unlawful termination trial against the broadcaster has entered its final day of evidence after hearing from Ms Lattouf herself and senior ABC executives.

She was taken off air in December 2023, when there were two days left on the contract, after sharing a Human Rights Watch post on Instagram that alleged starvation was being used as a tool of war in Gaza.

Ms Lattouf’s lawyers have argued she was given advice about her use of social media — as opposed to a clear direction to not post.

They allege she was sacked due to her political opinions and/or race, which the ABC denies.

Elizabeth Green, who was then the content director of ABC Radio Sydney, today recalled a conversation she had with Ms Lattouf at the beginning of the contract.

She said she advised Ms Lattouf there had been complaints about her perceived stance on the Israel-Gaza conflict and insisted she had told the journalist to be mindful of what she was posting.

Ms Green recalled mentioning that it was “all about a perception of bias”.

“Obviously, I was doing what I was instructed to do, which was to tell her to keep a low profile on social media,” Ms Green told the Federal Court.

Under cross-examination from Ms Lattouf’s counsel, Philip Boncardo, she was asked a series of questions about the exact phrasing used in the conversation.

Asked if she told Ms Lattouf it was best to keep a low profile on Twitter, she replied: “I don’t think I just said Twitter, I think I said best not to post anything at all.”

“But you did not say explicitly and in terms it would be best to not post anything related to the Israel-Palestinian situation,” Mr Boncardo suggested.

“I believe I did,” Ms Green replied.

“You agreed with Ms Lattouf that it was okay for her to post something that was fact-based and from a verified source?” Mr Boncardo asked.

“I did,” Ms Green replied

“Or from a reputable organisation?” the barrister continued.

“I did,” Ms Green said.

Ms Green said she told Ms Lattouf it would be “best not to post anything that could be considered controversial”.

Ms Green agreed that in a meeting in which she found out Ms Lattouf was to be taken off air, she had expressed a view that she “did not see anything wrong” with Ms Lattouf’s Instagram post.

“I did say that,” she told the court.

Former manager denies Lattouf directed to not post on social media

When Ms Lattouf gave evidence last week, she recalled the conversation with Ms Green in which Ms Green discussed the ABC’s expectations around her use of social media, as mentioned in an email.

But she disagreed it was a directive to not post on social media.

Ms Lattouf said she had “respectfully but gently pushed back” against the suggestion that she did not post at all, and they came to an understanding that material from reputable sources would be fine.

She told the court the “sentiment” of what Ms Green was expressing was to be mindful on social media.

Ms Lattouf said she didn’t remember Ms Green saying anything like “I wouldn’t give anyone ammunition for complaints” and that it would “be best if you don’t post anything related to the Israel/Palestine situation”.

Today, Ms Green denied that she had told Ms Lattouf the decision to remove her from air “came from [outgoing managing director] David Anderson” after the journalist had been told she was being removed from air.

Direction given to ‘protect’ Lattouf

Then-head of audio content Benjamin Latimer told the court he gave a direction to Steve Ahern, acting in the position of head of capital city networks, that he was to direct Ms Lattouf “not to post anything on social media”.

He said the discussions were only ever in the context of the Middle East conflict and would have been understood that way.

According to Mr Latimer’s evidence, this was conveyed on the second day of Ms Lattouf’s contract.

During his cross-examination, Mr Latimer said it was “to protect her, to keep her on air and to ensure we weren’t compromising impartiality”.

Oshie Fagir, for Ms Lattouf, pointed to a later email from Mr Ahern to Mr Latimer and others which said it had been “suggested” to Ms Lattouf that not posting anything in that week may be wise.

“Was I confident … that my instruction had been followed, yes,” Mr Latimer said.

Mr Fagir suggested a series of emails on the December 18 and 19 2023 were inconsistent with a clear direction having been given, but Mr Latimer insisted he was “certain” that it had.

“The evidence you’ve just given is false, Mr Latimer, what do you say about that?” Mr Fagir put to the witness.

“Incorrect,” he replied.

Mr Latimer accepted it was “an unusual direction” and that the scrutiny Ms Lattouf’s social media accounts received was also unusual, but denied that Ms Lattouf was treated differently because she held opinions sympathetic to the human rights of Palestinian people.

He further rejected that those opinions were the reason Ms Lattouf was removed from air, that he knew senior ABC management “wanted her gone”, and that he felt pressure and ultimately “played his part” in delivering that outcome.

No ‘blanket rule’ for expressing opinions

Simon Melkman, who was acting in the role of editorial director at the time, told the court there was no “blanket rule” that suggested an ABC employee cannot express opinion, in their private time, with which some people might disagree.

But he said that conduct may still amount to a potential breach of either the ABC code of conduct, or personal use of social media guidelines.

“All I’m saying is there isn’t a broad overarching rule of that nature,” he said.

Asked about ABC staff expressing opinions on potentially controversial issues, he told the judge: “There are circumstances where that conduct would be a problem”.

Mr Fagir took Mr Melkman through several tweets by ABC presenter Patricia Karvelas — on various subjects — but Mr Melkman said he could not assess such posts “in isolation” and required far more context.

Mr Melkman said that following a Teams meeting involving managers, there was uncertainty about whether the direction to Ms Lattouf was to not post anything controversial, or not post anything in connection with the Israel-Gaza conflict.

But he insisted there was a “consensus view” that a direction had been breached.

“Which one?” Mr Fagir asked.

“In effect, either,” Mr Melkman replied.

He told the court he regarded the Human Rights Watch post as “controversial” because the allegation within it had been denied by Israel.

Mr Fagir put to the witness that if any other ABC employee had shared the post, there would have been no sanction.

Mr Melkman replied: “I truly cannot say, those would be very different circumstances.”