An ABC Radio presenter revealed as the voice of the notorious Bob Katter Australian Party attack ad — roundly condemned by all sides of politics — has been stood down by the national broadcaster.
Suzanne McGill, a casually-employed Saturday breakfast host of ABC South West WA local radio, is named at the end of the ad as the voiceover artist responsible for delivering homophobic lines like “the LNP leader supports gay marriage, just like Greens leader Bob Brown” and “is a vote for LNP leader Campbell Newman a vote for gay marriage?”
After a pro-gay marriage blog speculated over the connection, and following Crikey‘s inquiries to the ABC, a spokesperson said a formal investigation will now be held into McGill’s involvement.
“It can be confirmed that Ms McGill did not seek nor obtain permission for external voiceover work, as required under ABC Editorial and Workplace behaviours policies,” the spokesperson said.
“ABC Editorial and Workplace Policies apply to all staff, regardless of employment status. To that end, the ABC will conduct a formal investigation. Ms McGill will not be on air while the matter is investigated.”
According to the ABC’s editorial policies covering “independence, integrity and responsibility”, the “external activities of individuals undertaking work for the ABC must not undermine the independence and integrity of the ABC’s editorial content”. Its specific Queensland election policies reiterate its commitment to impartiality and independence given the trust thrust upon the government broadcaster by the voting public.
McGill could not be contacted this morning.
In addition to her ABC work, McGill is employed by Abe’s Audio, doing spots for a range of clients including furniture retailers and flower shops. An Abe’s spokesperson confirmed that the company had been involved in the production of the Katter spot.
Other elements of the ad have also attracted criticism. The pixellated image of the gay couple used in the ad was quickly chased by crafty Googlers to this copyrighted stock image from a French photo house.
The Katter strategists behind the ad depart from the usual Australian template, employing many of the tactics incorporated in US versions including sinister keyboard lines, slow pans and zooming, repetition and horror movie-style cut-ups.
The ad appears to be strongly influenced by this notorious 2008 effort from US conservative political action group the “American Issues Project”, linking Weather Underground founder Bill Ayres to Barack Obama. “Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?” the haunting voiceover asked.
University of Melbourne political ad expert Sally Young told Crikey this morning that while the US-aping approach was usually a rarity, Australia has a storied history of negativity, including attacks on Robert Menzies, Gough Whitlam and the Libs’ recently-reprised “Kevin O’Lemon” and “Latham L Plates” series.
“It’s very presidential in style … the production values are really cheap and nasty and the use of the image is interesting,” she said. “Obviously they didn’t want to get a real image of a gay couple in case they repudiated them. It’s very American…there’s no sense of humour about it and it’s actually quite vicious.”
Overnight, The Guardian posted a helpful primer to the current slate of GOP primary attack ads which have much higher production values. The all-time best attack ad — so famous that it has inspired its own “index” — is this 1988 George HW Bush spot highlighting Michael Dukakis’ “weekend prison passes” that allowed criminal Willie Horton to commit rape and murder.
Then there’s this amazing mash-up on the 1800 presidential election. “John Adams is a blind, bald crippled, toothless man who wants to start a war with France,” the ad begins. “When he’s not busy importing mistresses from Europe he’s trying to marry one of his sons to a daughter of King George.”
A political insider contacted by Crikey this morning named a classic of the Australian genre as a 2007 NSW election Labor ad targeting Peter Debnam’s ownership of a failed prawn hatchery and a gym.
27 thoughts on “ABC Radio presenter, the voice of Katter hate ad, stood down”
Suzanne Blake
March 15, 2012 at 9:16 am@ Blair Martin
I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of who she did voiceover for.
I am talking about employment law and “restraint of trade”.
Google it, 100’s of cases are listed. The fact that she was part time at ABC is even stronger for her position.
Just because you do a voice over, does not mean you support or do not support an issue, product, service. Same with an ad. Yes there maybe moral issues for you and future career impacts, eg Carbon Cate etc, but that is a personal choice.
The WA part time ABC journalist has been dealt with unfairly and I hope she takes legal opinion.
Alfonse
March 15, 2012 at 10:41 pmStill, is anyone addressing the real issue ? If you are pro gay marriage or against gay marriage – it matters not. You are entitled to put your point of view forward in response to alternative views AND in the public arena. Whether you are appalled at homosexuality or merely amused by the antics of mardis gras participants matters not – in Australia you are entitled to your point of view and entitled to discuss it publicly. The ad itself merely asked a question. You can debate the politics behind it but not the content. Not too many gay people I know were anywhere near offended – they just laughed at it and rightly debated the issue of State vs Federal issues. (in this case the futile attempt at blending both). Smart people, no knee-jerk reactions and no inquiry as to whether the cameraman may have been moonlighting. Strewth, aren’t there better things to throw molotovs over ?
kate
March 16, 2012 at 10:31 am@Alfonse, “The ad itself merely asked a question. You can debate the politics behind it but not the content.”
Actually neither of those statements is true. If you want to understand what people’s problem with it is, surprisingly enough I suggest you read Andrew Bolt – everything that follows here is a direct quote from his blog on the subject of why Katter’s ad has been so roundly condemned:
kate
March 16, 2012 at 10:41 am@Peter Ormonde:
I think you have that the wrong way round. Gods and men in cassocks and silly hats have no business even discussing the civil contract of marriage, as defined under the Marriage Act, which provided protection for property rights, superannuation, kids and all that sort of thing. After all, the great majority of marriages celebrated in Australia today have no religious involvement at all, and the religious ceremony has no status unless it complies with the Marriage Act.
If religions want to formalise religious unions in accordance with their own beliefs and rituals, they can go right ahead (as long as they don’t breach any laws). But don’t expect the government, or the majority of the population who want to get married without the religious trappings, to adhere to their chosen rituals or restrictions. Particular churches can decide to “marry” only people of their own faith, or only straight people, or only people who haven’t been married before, or only left-handed lesbians with a lisp for all I care. If they want to call it ‘holy matrimony’ or ‘religious marriage’ or ‘Shirley’ – whatever.
Marriage, however, as defined in the Marriage Act, is a matter of secular law, and quite frankly the prejudices of the various brands of godbotherer are entirely irrelevant.
Alfonse
March 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm@Kate, – Yes of course you are free to debate both the politics and content. What you cannot debate is the right to voice your opinion, position, feelings, intentions in spite of opposition or in spite of politics or indeed, in spite of the views of the ABC on workplace relations. Each of us has a position on most issues – none of us is always right, despite our self-preserving egos telling us we are. Let us be free to speak AND be howled down – but never silenced.
mikeb
March 20, 2012 at 3:37 pm@Suzanne Blake – “Suggest you look at case law on Restraint of Trade in Employment Law in AUSTRALIA. It has only been held to be enforcable where the employee has commercially sensitive information”. No No No.
Have you actually looked at commercial law in Aust? I’m no lawyer but I certainly covered this in Uni and as part of subsequent employment. There is NO qualification that “sensitive information” must be involved. The main proviso is that the restraint must be reasonable and, therefore, the test would be whether the ABC employee agrred to employment conditions which were not reasonable. You nor I can’t come to a conclusion one way or the other without seeing all the facts but I’m sure that ABC legal would have a very well vetted standard agreement that they think would hold up under examination. This link has the best summary that i could find quickly on google. http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~831.htm
Suzanne Blake
March 20, 2012 at 9:02 pm@ MikeB
Yes I am very familiar with IR law, have been expert witness at IR cases with restraint of trade. First, please don’t confuse US case law with Australian.
In Australia it has only been held where:
1. Information or IP is extremely sensitive
2. Some payment or garden leave in the case of post employment (not case here)
3. Less enforcable for part time / casual and she was part time.
4. There are other rare ones as well
Many employers stick clauses in contracts as a catch all / scare tactic. When push comes to shove in Court (if it goes that far) they fail.