Latest news with #Mornings
Winnipeg Free Press
19 hours ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
B.C. Coastal First Nations issue open letter to Carney opposing suggested pipeline
VANCOUVER – Coastal First Nations in British Columbia have issued an open letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, asking him to reject any new proposal for a crude oil pipeline to the northwest coast. The move comes as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pushes for a new private-sector pipeline that would send crude oil to the northern B.C. coast for export to Asia. Marilyn Slett, president of the Coastal First Nations-Great Bear Initiative, says in a news release that there is no pipeline or oil tanker project that would be acceptable to their group, and any proposal to send crude oil through their coastal waters is a 'non-starter.' The group is asking Carney to uphold the 2019 Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which prohibits oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude from stopping, loading or unloading at ports or marine installations along the north coast. It says the act is Canada's recognition of more than 50 years of effort to protect the north Pacific coast, which includes the Great Bear Rainforest and Haida Gwaii, from the risks of an oil spill. The nations say they have not changed their stance since oil tankers were banned from their territorial waters in 2010 based on ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities. The group says the north Pacific coast has one of the richest and most productive cold-water marine ecosystems on Earth, and it remains a source of sustenance, culture, and livelihood for coastal communities and all B.C. residents. The group has instead suggested the prime minister meet with them to 'better understand the credible ecological treasure that is the north Pacific coast.' Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. The letter comes less than a week after Carney met hundreds of First Nations chiefs, where he faced resistance to the Building Canada Act, which allows the government to fast track major projects that it deems to be in the national interest, including by sidestepping existing laws. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 22, 2025.
West Australian
5 days ago
- Politics
- West Australian
No Lattouf contempt probe after Nine names lobbyists
Nine has dodged a contempt prosecution despite publicly naming several pro-Israel lobbyists who had their identities suppressed after complaining about an ABC radio host's views on Palestine. Antoinette Lattouf was ousted from her casual position on ABC Radio Sydney's Mornings program in December 2023 after a concerted email campaign by the lobbyists demanding she be sacked. She was awarded $70,000 for her unlawful termination in June. As her Federal Court hearing against the ABC started in February, Justice Darryl Rangiah suppressed the names of nine individuals who had complained about Lattouf. He said there were safety fears if they were publicly identified. Then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose wrote to former managing director David Anderson that she was getting over the complaints two days into Lattouf's fill-in hosting shift, in an email presented during the trial. Nine published a series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in January 2024 naming four of the complainants, and did not remove the names until March 2025. The complainants then urged Justice Rangiah to refer the matter to a Federal Court registrar who could prosecute the two Nine-owned publications for contempt. The contempt case was also brought against journalists Michael Bachelard and Calum Jaspan, editors Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett and Nine's in-house lawyers Larina Alick and Sam White. On Friday, Justice Rangiah declined to refer the matter for prosecution. The complainants had brought a "reasonably arguable" case that Nine was in contempt, he acknowledged in his judgment. But Nine had an arguable defence that the court's suppression order only related to the names of nine complainants found in documents tendered during Lattouf's trial against the ABC, he wrote. Nine argued it had sourced the names from other material, more than a year before the trial started. In declining to send the matter onto a registrar, the judge said the complainants could prosecute the case themselves if they wished. "I consider the intervening parties are 'the ones most naturally placed' to conduct proceedings for contempt of court," he wrote. He ordered the lobbyists pay half of Nine's legal costs, saying the network's failure to properly respond to repeated correspondence from their lawyers was "discourteous and unhelpful". However, he did not order all costs be paid because there was no reasonable basis for contempt proceedings to be brought against Mr White and Ms Alick. The in-house lawyers had no control over whether the articles were amended and there was no evidence about the legal advice they had given, the judge said.
Perth Now
5 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
No Lattouf contempt probe after Nine names lobbyists
Nine has dodged a contempt prosecution despite publicly naming several pro-Israel lobbyists who had their identities suppressed after complaining about an ABC radio host's views on Palestine. Antoinette Lattouf was ousted from her casual position on ABC Radio Sydney's Mornings program in December 2023 after a concerted email campaign by the lobbyists demanding she be sacked. She was awarded $70,000 for her unlawful termination in June. As her Federal Court hearing against the ABC started in February, Justice Darryl Rangiah suppressed the names of nine individuals who had complained about Lattouf. He said there were safety fears if they were publicly identified. Then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose wrote to former managing director David Anderson that she was getting over the complaints two days into Lattouf's fill-in hosting shift, in an email presented during the trial. Nine published a series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in January 2024 naming four of the complainants, and did not remove the names until March 2025. The complainants then urged Justice Rangiah to refer the matter to a Federal Court registrar who could prosecute the two Nine-owned publications for contempt. The contempt case was also brought against journalists Michael Bachelard and Calum Jaspan, editors Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett and Nine's in-house lawyers Larina Alick and Sam White. On Friday, Justice Rangiah declined to refer the matter for prosecution. The complainants had brought a "reasonably arguable" case that Nine was in contempt, he acknowledged in his judgment. But Nine had an arguable defence that the court's suppression order only related to the names of nine complainants found in documents tendered during Lattouf's trial against the ABC, he wrote. Nine argued it had sourced the names from other material, more than a year before the trial started. In declining to send the matter onto a registrar, the judge said the complainants could prosecute the case themselves if they wished. "I consider the intervening parties are 'the ones most naturally placed' to conduct proceedings for contempt of court," he wrote. He ordered the lobbyists pay half of Nine's legal costs, saying the network's failure to properly respond to repeated correspondence from their lawyers was "discourteous and unhelpful". However, he did not order all costs be paid because there was no reasonable basis for contempt proceedings to be brought against Mr White and Ms Alick. The in-house lawyers had no control over whether the articles were amended and there was no evidence about the legal advice they had given, the judge said.
The National
6 days ago
- Politics
- The National
BBC bias may well be unspoken but it exists
The Prof's dogged determination yesterday showed what can happen when an easy listening Radio Scotland programme ambles into a serious subject with a formidable contributor ready to stand his ground. He was determined to point out that 'fringe' causes like independence and Gaza are now mostly majority causes, yet casually placed way below the 'mainstream' concerns of the great and good in broadcasting's pecking order. Richard spoke about the preponderance of business over trade union voices on the BBC, the insidious presence of right-wing Tufton Street think tank types on Question Time and Debate Night … and the unfair way his own interview was being conducted. READ MORE: Richard Murphy: I went on the BBC today. Here's why it got fiery For that he got it in the neck. And gave back as good as he got. Yesterday's Mornings phone-in was about bias, bad judgement at the BBC and a decline in trust amongst viewers and listeners. Savaging the sole pro-indy, left-wing voice substantiated the accusations rather well. To be fair, Richard was asked on. I was too but didn't pick up the message till halfway through the show. So, it's true the left/indy position was sought out and 'heard'. But that's not enough. It's one thing to have a sole voice representing the Yes 'minority' (which as Richard pointed out, is a polling majority these days), it's quite another to be interrupted throughout like an annoying, foot-stamping, attention-grabbing, irritating toddler. From her tone, I'm not sure presenter Connie McLaughlin knew Richard's background beyond him being a National columnist (though strangely the paper's name was omitted from his description). For the record, Professor Richard Murphy from Sheffield University co-founded the Tax Justice Network and directs Tax Research UK. He co-created the Green New Deal and the concept of country-by-country reporting, used in more than 90 countries to identify tax abuse by multinational corporations. Not a guy to be shut down. And anyway, from 25 years' experience of live broadcasting at the BBC and Channel 4, it's totally counter-productive to interrupt or shut down a speaker accusing you of bias. Flexing the extra muscle wielded by a broadcaster flips the audience instantly onto the interviewee's side. The transcript of the exchange has done the rounds but the nub of the exchange was this: Richard: Let's just be clear. I've heard a programme which is entirely about how good the BBC is from BBC editors and producers. That is bias. Connie: Have you not been speaking for the past eight minutes or so? Because I don't think then that's accurate. Richard: Yes, and every time I do, you interrupt me. Connie: Come on. Richard, that's not fair. Come on. Listen, I'm going to give you a minute and a half, but I have got to move on. That's part of my job, so you can continue on for a minute and a half. There you go. Richard: You aren't rationing others… Connie: You're eating into your minute and a half … Richard: The BBC is biased against the nationalist cause in Scotland. It is biased against the Palestinian cause and its right to have a state. It is biased in favour of Israel very clearly. It is biased with regard to its output in favour of the wealthy of this country. And that is the accusation that most people in this country have against the BBC, which is why they won't listen to it, because they do not get objective reporting. Wow. It was powerful listening because bias was being demonstrated not just discussed. And because another contributor, former BBC Scotland political correspondent Brian Taylor, was correctly asked to respond. He insisted he'd never been asked by the BBC to tailor a report to fit an agenda dictated by managers. He observed Unionists also complained of BBC bias and finished: 'The Beeb did not steer me for one scintilla of one second.' Actually, that was my experience too – it doesn't mean management bias didn't exist. IN my 25 years working for the BBC, I only experienced one active steer by London in 1997, after Scots had voted out every Tory MP, meaning Her Madge's Opposition at Westminster would have no representation in any Scottish election programmes if we played it by the usual book. READ MORE: Half of Aberdeen homes fall in value as 'oil capital' status diminishes No MPs should mean no microphone. But London insisted the Tory voice should be heard despite their election wipe-out and that they should be the second speaker in any political discussion. I decided I didn't get that memo but did let Tories speak, for the same limited time as every other minority party. No-one complained. But the bigger point is that no-one gets to broadcast for the BBC without internalising its collective outlook and corporate stance. Things that deviate too far from a comfortable, middle-of-the-road stance simply feel wrong. No-one has to say anything. Especially after the BBC's clash with Tony Blair during the Iraq War over the 'dodgy dossier', when popular director-general Greg Dyke was forced to walk the plank. After that Auntie shrank from any confrontation with government and the higher echelons of the BBC and the Tory Party became interchangeable. The corporation's timorousness and insistence on the most wooden version of 'balance' were palpable to all staff. Take the indyref. I got a call from a producer in 2014 explaining that BBC Scotland couldn't cover the phenomenal increase in Yes activity unless there was some grassroots No activity they could film as well. Did I know of any? Control by unspoken diktat is how all corporate culture works everywhere. Nothing needs to be said. But back to the programme. Clearly, producers imagined much of their discussion would centre on the Beeb's decision to sack MasterChef presenters Gregg Wallace for alleged sexual harassment and John Torode for an alleged racist remark, and to allow a 13-year-old Palestinian lad to accurately describe the living hell of Gaza, where his dad has worked for Gaza's Hamas-run government. A BBC review into the documentary Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone concluded there was nothing 'in the narrator's scripted contribution to the programme that breached the BBC's standards' or evidence his 'father or family influenced the content of the programme'. Abdullah's parentage was a relatively small problem which could easily have been signposted, letting viewers decide on his story for themselves. READ MORE: Former top judge says court would 'likely' rule Israel is committing genocide in Gaza But oh no. The BBC removed the documentary from iPlayer. As ex-BBC journalist Karishma Patel asked: 'If the BBC is serious about signposting the relevant connections of every contributor, why not tell us when an interviewee has served in the Israeli military? Why not highlight the ICC arrest warrant out for Benjamin Netanyahu whenever he's mentioned?' Indeed. And while we're at it, what was the problem with Gaza: Doctors Under Attack – another excellent, disturbing, passionate documentary dropped by the BBC in case it did 'not meet the high standards' of impartiality – even though subsequently broadcast by Channel 4 without any formal complaints. Roger Bolton – former Radio 4 presenter told MacLaughlin that the biggest danger to the BBC is its 'on the one hand, on the other' style of reporting. 'When facts dictate the truth of one side,' he said, 'the Beeb should take a stand.' Correct. But he went on to praise the BBC as great value, 'costing less than a cappuccino a week'. Whit? This very comparison presumes a middle-class audience – when in fact, women account for three-quarters of criminal convictions for watching TV without a licence. Why? According to a BBC-commissioned report it's because women are more likely to head single-parent households; more likely to be in when an inspector visits and more likely to be living in poverty or low-paid work and struggling with bills. £174.50 is a lot for many people yet non-payment is treated as a criminal offence, unlike any other unpaid household bill. This is Auntie's biggest problem. It is so very special. A bit like M&S food. It does not just produce programmes. It produces BBC programmes. Unashamedly targeting middle to upper-class consumers may work for a private company. But not for a public service broadcaster. Some views, voices and causes are quite plainly the wrong leaves on the line for BBC Scotland. What's needed is a heartfelt apology to Richard Murphy. No-one's holding their breath.
The National
7 days ago
- Politics
- The National
I called out BBC Radio Scotland for bias – here's how it went
As the paper notes: ECONOMIST Richard Murphy clashed with a BBC Radio Scotland presenter as he ripped into the corporation for being 'biased against the nationalist cause'. Murphy took part in the phone-in on the Mornings show presented by Connie McLaughlin on Wednesday when the pair got into a spat. Midway through an extensive discussion on impartiality at the BBC, Murphy came onto the programme to say he did not have confidence in the BBC, highlighting that the 'nationalist community' does not trust the broadcaster because it is 'so absolutely pro-Unionist'. After former BBC political editor Brian Taylor was brought back into the discussion – having spoken on the programme already – alongside ex-BBC Radio 4 presenter Roger Bolton, Murphy and McLaughlin then got into a heated back-and-forth. Eventually, after many interruptions from the presenter, who seemed totally unaware that the producer had invited me onto the programme because, apparently, they could find "no one in Scotland" who had a word of criticism to make about the BBC, I was allowed a word in edgeways and got to say: The BBC is biased in favour of big business, it is biased in favour of the right wing media because it uses that as its news sources in the main for discussion, it is biased against the nationalist cause in Scotland, it is biased against the Palestinian cause in its claim and its right to have a state, [and] it is biased in favour of Israel very clearly. The bias was staggering. In a supposed discussion on bias in the BBC, which had BBC employees or ex-employees appear one after the other to sing its praises, including the fact, as one suggested, that in 35 years he had never seen editorial bias, I was interrupted from the moment I began to criticise it, as if to prove that everything I had to say about bias was justified. READ MORE: Zarah Sultana restates 'We are all Palestine Action' in parliament Even more bizarrely, when they introduced me, they said I was a "columnist" but would not even mention The National newspaper that I write for – so biased are they against it. I had to correct them. Never doubt that the BBC is biased. And most especially, never doubt that it is very biased in Scotland, where Unionism is the only cause that it represents. No wonder no one wanted to go on: The odds were grossly unfairly stacked against me as a critic. And that, apparently, is an absence of bias in the BBC lexicon.
