this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

4607 readers
198 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What a mess of a time we live in when a state police department and national broadcaster act with such impunity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CTDummy@aussie.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

A fair point, I should have specified former member of organised crime. Especially since they still seem to care about their standing with current organised criminals.

Oh yeah fishy shit is happening in multiple states. Never mind in NT the attorney general has a relative get off with a slap on the wrist for running someone down and then bragging about it after the fact; is now trying limit freedom of information request on politicians. Nothing odd there.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A fair point, I should have specified former member of organised crime. Especially since they still seem to care about their standing with current organised criminals.

Your second sentence is what's important. It doesn't matter whether he was previously a member of an organised crime gang and if you've seen his reporting you'll know his stories are very unique within Australian journalism because he has so many contacts and so much trust. The ABC was right when it said, "Mahmood Fazal does extremely challenging, impactful and important public-interest journalism for the ABC...". He's not a reporter than can just be 1:1 replaced by some generic journalism degree graduate.

The real problem is that it seems like he still has more than just connections to that world, which is putting himself and others at risk and compromising his professional integrity as a journalist. You definitely can't have an active participant in the crime world working at the national broadcaster. However, it's important to remember the guy making all the accusations is untrustworthy so we will need to wait to see how much is true.

[–] CTDummy@aussie.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree somewhat but only for former members where it’s apparent they no longer have ties to that world. Like those videos you see of former professional criminals explaining how stuff works. Usually it’s because they’ve been arrested and given evidence against their former “colleagues” and/or have long been away from that life. This doesn’t appear to be true for Mahmood.

However, it's important to remember the guy making all the accusations is untrustworthy so we will need to wait to see how much is true.

What Jordan? How is he the is guy untrustworthy in this? The same crime family that attempted to have him killed is the family this “journalist” still has ties to??

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

What Jordan?

I'm fairly sure he means the other crime linked guy on that podcast jordan references in the video

[–] CTDummy@aussie.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

Ah that’s my bad then.

[–] Ilandar@lemmy.today 2 points 3 weeks ago

Man foi is continually being rolled back. Ots the kind of thing that i'm not sure politicians should have control over. A bit like elections, or monetary policy.

I suppose one difference is that its sonewhat self policing, no Party should want to get rid of it completely, because they rely on that mechanism to attack the Party in power. But wheres the line on that, and if overwhelming majoritys/senators are convinced to make a reduction in access its almost impossible to see it rolled back.