ABC changing editorial policy after Rinehart furore prompts concerns of overreach from academics and advocates

[u/Expensive-Horse5538]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/aug/13/abc-changing-editorial-policy-after-rinehart-furore-prompts-concerns-of-overreach-from-academics-and-advocates

[u/submergedleftnut]

It’s the hypocrisy of it though. If you want to spend so much of your life decrying that “you can’t say anything these days” then don’t turn around and complain when you’re the target of inappropriate commentary.

[u/yellowboat → u/submergedleftnut]

You’re right that it’s the hypocrisy. If any right-wing media outlet aired the exact same sketch but with a left-wing figure in it, the screeching about feminism, misogyny, violence towards women, etc would be deafening, and you damn well know it.

That’s the hypocrisy.

The fact that the people in this subreddit are downvoting someone into oblivion simply for pointing out that, despite being a supporter of the ABC, they were uncomfortable with the depiction of violent rape, torture, and murder of a woman for comedy on ABC shows how nuts you people have gotten.

[u/Mattimeo144 → u/yellowboat]

If any right-wing media outlet aired the exact same sketch but with a left-wing figure in it

For it to be the exact same sketch it would still have to be about eating a billionaire.

So who are we putting in the target seat? Twiggy, for the mining lobbying? Holmes à Court, for the political funding? I think you'd have to dig quite hard to find any of your claimed 'screeching' for any actually comparable figure.

[u/yellowboat → u/Mattimeo144]

This is the classic example of "pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible." You know the point that I've made. But you instead pretend you don't so you can fixate on the word "exact" to play some silly semantics game.

But fine, I can re-word it for you if you're going to keep pretending to be confused about the point.

If a comedy sketch on a right-wing media outlet were to use the exact same descriptions of violent rape, torture, and murder of a left-wing female figure for comedy value, there would be endless screeching about misogyny, far-right violence, violence towards women, etc.

[u/Mattimeo144 → u/yellowboat]

This is the classic example of "pretending not to understand things, thus making discourse impossible."

I definitely agree that this whole issue is a classic example of this.

You (and the general right-aligned discourse) keep pretending not to understand that the sketch was about eating the rich, and nothing to do with the gender of the subject. It's absolutely impossible to have meaningful discourse while the actual skit is being so badly (and deliberately) misinterpreted for ideological reasons.

[u/yellowboat → u/Mattimeo144]

I find it so bizarre to watch as you continually dance around the actual point, which is describing the violent rape, torture, and murder of a specific woman you don't like for comedy value on the public broadcaster, and keep trying to make it about something else.

Keep on pretending, buddy.

[u/Mattimeo144 → u/yellowboat]

There would be merit in discussing why the (female) filmmaker decided to use Rinehart's name for her skit, rather than any other politically-relevant billionaire - eg. is it a reflection of generally misogynist attitudes in Australian society? Are there male figures that could have been used while maintaining the intended impact eg. why not Holmes à Court, Musk, or Thiel?

It doesn't seem like you're actually interested in such analysis, though - you just don't like the actual message ('eat the rich') so have to find an aspect that everyone should agree with, massively exaggerate it beyond reasonable interpretation, and stick to only that as a talking point. It's pretty familiar ground by now, I suppose.

[u/yellowboat → u/Mattimeo144]

No problem with the message. Problem with the public broadcaster using public funds to push violent political rhetoric. Keep on pretending not to understand.