Pauline Hanson’s One Nation kicks ABC and The Guardian out of press conference: ‘Morally bankrupt’
One Nation's national director James Ashby has defended barring ABC and Guardian journalists from a Victorian press conference, calling the outlets "morally bankrupt" and accusing them of unfairly targeting the party. The conference, held in Melbourne on Tuesday, saw the party's Victorian leader Warren Pickering address allegations about his past, including historic methamphetamine use and a drink-driving conviction, after previously denying some claims. The episode drew criticism given One Nation's frequent calls for media transparency and free speech, with Ashby facing pointed questions from Nine News over the exclusion.
Ashby insisted One Nation was entitled to decide which media organisations attend its events and said the party would "treat" journalists "accordingly" depending on how it was treated. He also compared dealing with the ABC to being in an abusive relationship, a remark that drew immediate criticism from Today co-host Sylvia Jeffreys on air. On Pickering, Ashby denied any deliberate deception, arguing the original questions put to him were inaccurate and praising his admission of past drug use as "courageous" compared with other politicians.
- Ashby banned ABC and Guardian reporters from a One Nation press conference
- Move followed Victorian leader Pickering admitting past meth use
- Ashby's domestic violence comparison for ABC sparked on-air criticism
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Advocates of One Nation's position argue that no private organisation is obliged to grant access to every outlet, and that a party is entitled to decide who covers its events, just as any business or individual might. They contend that the ABC and The Guardian have a demonstrable editorial line critical of One Nation, and that inviting sympathetic or at least neutral coverage while declining outlets they view as consistently hostile is a legitimate exercise of judgement rather than an attack on press freedom, since those outlets remain free to report on the party using other sources. They would add that a leader voluntarily disclosing past personal failings, such as drug use, deserves some credit for candour rather than being treated purely as a scandal to be maximised by unfriendly media.
The case against
Critics argue that a party which routinely champions free speech and media transparency undermines its own credibility by selectively barring journalists, especially from publicly funded broadcasters like the ABC, precisely when facing scrutiny over a leader's past conduct and previous denials. They contend that press conferences serve a public accountability function, and excluding specific outlets because their questioning is expected to be tough looks less like a principled stand and more like an attempt to avoid uncomfortable scrutiny. They would also note that language equating a professional relationship with media to an abusive one trivialises genuine abuse and deflects from substantive questions about honesty with voters.