Apr 15, 2014

Will Scott’s apology dog ABC comedians and screw Aunty’s ACMA case?

Eight months after defending the ABC's right to air a controversial skit, MD Mark Scott is saying it should never have aired. What prompted his decision, and what does it mean?

Myriam Robin — Media Reporter

Myriam Robin

Media Reporter

ABC managing director and editor-in-chief Mark Scott’s apology to The Australian commentator Chris Kenny, delivered yesterday, raises more questions than it answers.

Missing from the apology is any statement to the effect that the ABC had breached its editorial policies by airing a segment on The Hamster Decides that depicted an obviously photoshopped picture of Kenny mounting a dog. An internal ABC editorial review, prompted by complaints to the public broadcaster, cleared the sketch of any breach. Scott’s apology reads, in part:

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

8 thoughts on “Will Scott’s apology dog ABC comedians and screw Aunty’s ACMA case?

  1. Daemon

    What utter twaddle from a Crikey “reporter”. Sheer rubbish.

    Why not go out and ask for the ACMA to fine Limited News for bias pre and post election? Never happen. Why should the ABC have to apologise, when Limited News and the work of that old prick Murdoch are accepted as perfectly OK.

    Maybe you need to re-assess your work at Crikey, if you actually believe that. There is no room here for Murdoch’s Tame Typists.

  2. Itsarort

    I have this strange and sudden urge to photoshop the above image; replacing the hamster for a large map of Australia and Kenny’s face with a suitable effigy of the Coalition…

  3. klewso

    Limited News can use it’s massive resources to hold up for derision, pillory, bully and crucify anyone they want – but let someone reply in kind and watch out.

  4. Kevin_T

    Is “There’s so many lawyers of bureaucracy” a good play on words, or a great typo?

  5. Dez Paul

    @klewso. Indeed. At the end of the day, when all is said and done, sued and won, Chris Kenny is still a dog fu cker.

  6. AR

    But Scott’s still wearing polka dot boxers, no akshal penetration, so Ayotallab Kohomeini would be OK with that, as long as the glans pubis doesn’t quite disappear from sight..
    if you’re going to cave in, better to do it immediately, or at the bitter end, when you’ve exhausted every defence.“… maybe or was meant to be than?

  7. klewso

    That wouldn’t be so bad, if they were consistent with their remonstrating and badgering, but they’re not.
    What makes them worse is their habit of using their resources and market share to play favourites :- to ignore those they favour, that deserve to be held to account and responsibility. Protecting them from exposure, holding them to less scrutiny than they deserve, thus making them appear more electorally palatable, to enhance their electoral appeal.
    [“Murdoch’s Protection Racketeering”.]

  8. Bill Hilliger

    …the judge in the case found that while Kenny could sue for defamation on the grounds of extreme ridicule, he couldn’t sue on the imputation that he actually had sex with dogs. Why? Because it could not be proved or disproved, as they say what someone does privately is up to them.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details