The ABC was the only organisation to do, to my knowledge, any context searching. No-one else mentioned the ‘take what we offer, or else’ nature of the ‘negotiations’. No-one else went to anyone with an informed idea of what was going on. (Policy- and social-wise, anyway. When there were commentators, and there were many, they were talking about the political ramifications: does this ringbark any opposition to the ‘intervention’? Does this mean that the Government is winning over even the more obstructionist Aborigines? &c. Not so much ‘what was the context of the deal?’ or ‘was that community actually in need of any intervention in the first place?’ or ‘what might be ulterior motives, and how could we tell if they came into play?’)

So 1) the ABC's letting out that this had nothing to do with the well-being of Yunupingu's people, and a lot to do with the politics and strategy of forcing the intervention on people who don't want it, is because the ABC went and asked the questions, even if they haven't followed up on it. (And for all I know, they are, in the background.) And if it wasn't for the ABC, we wouldn't even know that.

Do you really think that if the ABC went away that the quality of reporting would go up?