What a revealing day it was in the Federal Court in Sydney last Wednesday.

ABC managing director and editor-in-chief David Anderson was in the witness box defending the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster’s decision in December 2023 against an unfair dismissal claim by freelance journalist Antoinette Lattouf.

Lattouf’s five-day contract to present ABC Radio’s Mornings program as a temporary fill-in was discontinued after three days.

The ABC says the decision was made on account of the journalist failing to abide by an instruction as to the ABC’s social media policy with respect to the Israel-Gaza conflict. Lattouf denies this. But she does not deny that she is an Israel antagonist.

A decision in the case is likely to be some time away. But already there is much to be learnt. Oshie Fagir, the applicant’s barrister, put it to Anderson that the ABC implemented its social media policy in an inconsistent way concerning its journalists.

As reported by James Madden in these pages on Thursday, Fagir cited several media posts recently made by ABC journalists Laura Tingle, Paul Barry, John Lyons and Patricia Karvelas, which he said breached the ABC’s social media policy as to impartiality.

Fagir’s point was that none of this foursome had been taken off air on account of their statements hostile to Peter Dutton (Tingle), Israel (Barry), Israel (Lyons) and the Murdoch press (Karvelas).

Anderson told the court that while some of the four had been counselled, none had been taken off air.

He also said he was not aware of the comments by Barry (who left the ABC in December) or Karvelas. And he defended Tingle’s comment that Australia is a racist country since, according to Anderson, it “was based in fact”.

How about that? The head of the ABC has declared that it is “based in fact” to maintain – Tingle-like – that Australia is “racist”.

Not that there isn’t a degree of racism in Australia – as there is in all nations. But that racism is embedded in Australia.

Anderson will step down as ABC managing director soon.

Evidence was also led that an ABC manager had described Lattouf’s temporary appointment “as part of our diversity policy”.

I am no supporter of Lattouf’s political views, but she is a talented journalist who is demeaned by being regarded as a mere diversity pick.

Anderson’s responses with respect to Tingle, Barry, Lyons and Karvelas suggests some high-profile ABC presenters are protected by ABC management while some lesser-known types are not.

Louise Milligan appears to be one of the protected lot. This was evident in the way the ABC covered her damages and costs when she defamed Liberal Party politician Andrew Laming in a private post a few years ago.

On Tuesday night, David Marr, the new presenter of Late Night Live on ABC Radio National, announced that his next show would feature investigative journalist Louise Milligan.

But the following evening Marr stated, “we were going to talk to Louise Milligan” about an issue but “we’re postponing that”.

No surprise there, really, when the content of the planned interview is known.

At 5am on Friday, January 31, ABC Online carried an article by Milligan and Charlotte King on the topic Marr spoke about. This story led ABC TV and radio news that morning.

Around the same time, Schwartz Media’s left-wing magazine, The Monthly, published a cover story by Milligan running for 14 pages on the same topic. Clearly, The Monthly’s February 2025 issue was linked to Milligan’s story on ABC Online.

The Monthly removed (“temporarily”, it maintains) the article from its online edition on Wednesday afternoon. As to ABC Online – the Milligan/King article has been replaced by a “Page not Found” reference.

Now the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster has an internal legal department of around 30 lawyers.

Yet, somehow or other, the ABC published online an article by Milligan on a Friday that it had to withdraw soon after.

This is unprofessional behaviour.

The Monthly’s defence is that it was not aware of a case that “is about to come before the courts”. The ABC appears to have provided no explanation whatsoever.

The ABC still engages Milligan to report on law or legal-related matters. Yet, as she’s made clear in her 2020 book, Witness, Milligan does not accept the judgment of even some unanimous decisions of the High Court of Australia.

In early 2023, Professor Jeremy Gans, of the Melbourne Law School, tweeted: “It’s a recurrent problem with Milligan’s journalism; if there are facts that don’t help her argument, she doesn’t tell readers, she just leaves them out.”

It was telling that Milligan chose to discuss her Monthly piece with Marr, with whom she shares many views. Milligan invariably does soft interviews on controversial issues with her ABC mates. And she never engages with critics at literary festivals and the like.

Yet Milligan remains an ABC favourite – one of the protected species about whom Anderson was queried in the Federal Court this week.