This week we used the oh-so controversial Zaky Mallah on Q&A as a case study for Institutions. Personally, for context, I find Q&A insufferable. It’s incredibly unbalanced, and the discussion generally results in nothing. However, on this particular issue, I think the ABC did nothing wrong.

The actual event was controversial, which shouldn’t (but does) mean anything. People can say whatever the hell the want. It was the subsequent reaction was handled terribly. Malcolm Turnbull questioned the ABC’s impartiality, the very impartiality the ABC prides itself on. And while Q&A is generally far from impartial, having Mallah speak was actually a rare example of their impartiality. Mallah posited his view, however ignorant it may be, towards Liberal MP Steve Ciobo, which he can then respond to. This is a conversation. This is impartiality. This is balance. Tony Abbott changing this into an us vs them narrative is unhelpful. You can question the Mallah’s views and the audience’s reaction, but you can’t question the ABC’s impartiality in this circumstance, especially considering host Tony Jones disavowed his comments. It would be impartial if the panel all shared Mallah’s views.