ESTHER:   Good evening, everyone.  And a special hello to Caz Willis, who is the first to note in the chat where she is coming from.  It is so great to see people coming in.  Please, as usual, as you do, please note in the chat whose country you're on, where you are.  Say hello so we can start to get to know you as everyone is coming in.  We have got such a great discussion this evening with Abdul and with Jane.  We will let people have a chance to come in and we will make a start in just a few minutes.  Michaela, hi from the freezing UK.  Very nice to see you again.  Ellis says hi from Canberra.  I've just come back from your country this morning, Ellis.  Nice to see you.  Mouruya New South Wales, and a few others starting to type in there as well.  Now, we were just saying, just when we were having our little tech testing chat before you all came in that the sound at my end is not so great today.  Sometimes I get an underwater gurgly sort of sound.  Hopefully I'm sounding okay.  Anne Stafford is saying that she's sounding very fragmented ‑ or I'm sounding, rather fragmented.  So that's no good.  Hopefully my internet connection holds up and we will have a really great chat.  It's interesting, it is one of our possible failure points, you know, if my internet drops out, then Jane and Abdul are going to have a lovely conversation amongst themselves and hopefully Leya will join in as well.  So as people are coming in, great to see you all.  My name is Esther Anatolitis.  I'm the executive director of NAVA.  This is ‑ we're many weeks into the NAVA Advocacy Program where we look at how together we can build up our skills in being great advocates for the arts, not just one‑off, not just, you know, in a time of emergency but in a way that really, really lasts.  Hello Emily Wakeling from Art Space Mackay.  I'm thrilled to see you.  That's fantastic.  

Now, we have got a lot to talk about today.  And we've got a wonderful intense hour.  And then we're going to have our workshop session at the end.  As we were saying last week, it is time to think about which of you are interested in becoming advocates and media spokes people for Arts Day on the Hill.  We're going to talk about that a little bit later.  For today's conversation our theme is how to be a media spokesperson.  We're going to go through quite a ‑ how would you describe it ‑ quite an interesting/unhappy/illuminating experience that Abdul had last year and Jane in her support of that as publicist.  Before we get into the conversation can I also add that as ever, the advocacy program is live captioned.  There is a link that is pinned to the top of the chat.  Hello again to our captioner Helen who is in Brisbane.  Super duper appreciate your work.  Leya our advocacy and communications manager, she is here too.  And she has just posted that link to the live captioning.  Probably a good idea if the sound is sounding a bit Crunchy at your end, you can open that up and see those words appear as we're speaking.  

Each session is recorded.  So we are recording this session.  And the transcription and the recording will be available tomorrow by some extraordinary miracle of modern technology.  Anne Stafford saying all is now going well, Esther.  What a relief because, you know, this is kind of ‑ yes, we have tied our tin cans together and we're having this conversation.  And thanks, Leya, who has just posted that link to where all of our weekly workshop recordings are.  

So let me introduce, first of all, artist Abdul Abdullah, who is joining us from his studio.  Hi, Abdul?  

ABDUL:   Gidday, Esther, how are you doing?  

ESTHER:   I am okay.  I've been hanging out for this so I'm super happy.  Jane Morey is a publicist.  She's NAVA's former publicist and someone whose work as well as Abdul I have known for a while, welcome Jane.  

JANE:   Thank you, Esther, how are you?  

ESTHER:   Getting better by the minute.  I've had a very big day and I'm sure we all have.  It's so nice to get together like this and have those bigger conversations where we get to unpack what has happened and, you know, really think through the implications because when a media event happens, especially like the one we're about to talk about, it can all be so fast moving.  And you don't always have ‑ you feel like you don't have that time immediately in front of you to be able to reflect, to be able to think, "Okay, you know, let me take a couple of weeks or days to think about what the best possible response is at this time."  It's kind of right there and it warrants a response.  

Of course, not all aspects of being a media spokesperson are about responding to a media emergency.  There's a range of other things we've been talking about in terms of engaging with the media, and we're going to recap on some of that after this evening's conversation.  Abdul and Jane are going to be with us for an hour, up until 5, and then we'll go more into the critical workshop stuff and open up our kit as well.  

So late last year, which, God, doesn't that seem like years ago when we think about the duration of this year ‑ but late last year Abdul was part of a show at Art Space Mackay.  He developed some work, as had every artist in that show, gone through a process that would have been really enriching, really connective kind of process, four and a half thousand people went through the gallery and saw the work, had the response, spent their time with it.  And then something happened a few weeks later.  Abdul, what happened?  

ABDUL:   Oh, so ‑ I'm sorry, I'm getting real bad echos. 

ESTHER:   Oh, no.  Now I can't hear you at all.  No.  All right, our fingers are crossed.  I think Abdul can still hear us.  No.  No.  Can't hear you.  Just at the propitious moment.  I am sure he will come back.  We were doing so well.  Say some more things.  Now he has vanished.  I think he's turning his audio on and off which is always a good idea as well.  I will kind of reset that story until Abdul comes back.  There's a little blinky sound of time.  There is Abdul now.  Say some things and we will see if you can hear me we've lost you again.  We now have some options.  We have quiet Abdul, mute Abdul and loud Abdul.  I totally want loud Abdul back so I'm crossing my fingers that this will ‑ I'm just noticing the chat there.  Someone saying woops Yuma turned into yummy.  And Anna Glynn from the rainforest at Jasper's Bush.  Abdul. 

ABDUL:   Can you hear me?  

ESTHER:   Brilliant.  

ABDUL:   That is fantastic and no echos either. 

ESTHER:   I'm glad that worked out.  So thousands of people saw the work, things were going great critical responses and then something happened.  What happened, Abdul?  

ABDUL:   Oh, it was really frustrating.  So the gallery itself wanted to engage with local council to get them into the space and to get that sort of support and to get them to understand the exhibition.  So they took the local council on a tour.  There was one particular council member Martin Bella who came into the show.  As I understand he seemed to come into the exhibition already a bit defensive or perhaps on the offensive a little bit looking very closely at each work trying ‑ this is as I understand it anyway ‑ trying to find something that would trigger him, I guess.  And he found my works which he took as an attack on Australian soldiers and Australian identity and got very upset by it and apparently made quite a scene at the gallery.  But then he felt that he was shut down by the other councillors who thought that his objections were perhaps a little bit silly.  And then he went to Facebook ‑ went to social media and then went to the media.  So I got first contacted by a local paper and then Channel Nine and that sort of thing.  But then in addition to that he went to his member ‑ or the local Senator which is George Christiansen, who also took offence.  He went to social media and the media and then it was on sky news and that kind of thing.  Then it blew up to something that was very unexpected.  I got a lot of nasty things to my email and messages to my website and that sort of thing based on the mischaracterisation ‑ what I believe are the mischaracterisations of these works.  And that mischaracterisation was perpetuated to the RSL, veterans groups, to all sorts of people who then in turn got very upset by their perception of my intention and the threat that I represented to them, I guess.  

ESTHER:   It's just such an awful thing to have gone through.  And there is a lot to ask you about that.  In particular, to have had, you know, as we say, the show had been open for a while and nobody had raised any objection, any concern.  Nobody had felt threatened or triggered or hostile.  Tell us a bit about the work, just for those who don't know the pieces.  Tell us a bit about the work.  

ABDUL:   So the two works are embroideries.  They were made for an exhibition in New Zealand.  They were first exhibited in Wellington, and then a museum in Auckland before travelling to Australia to be part of this exhibition, the violent assault tour.  They depicted two Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.  I have obscured the faces.  They're not recognisable, anonymous figures.  I changed the colours of their uniforms, one is pink and one is blue, I believe.  Another shift away from any identifying feature.  And they're on a black background.  Over the top you've got a big smile emoji that fits over the top.  That fits in line with a whole series of works where I've talked about the difference between a person's lived reality and what they project about themselves and what's ‑ and how they are perceived from the outside.  But these works were also speaking to Australia's involvement in our war overseas and being very critical of our engagement in these wars in my life time.  But also examining the effect that these wars have on the people that participate in them. 

ESTHER:   So so many layers of things there that were really carefully considered in the way you approach your work.  As you say, the work had been exhibited elsewhere.  There was, you know, the work as with so much of your work, it invites you to make those kind of multiple layers of response and interpretation.  And so it is really hard to see this as anything other than an absolutely wilful, you know, decision to use your work in order to make some kind of political point.  

Jane, what was your first response when this happened?  How did you feel?  

JANE:   Well, like Abdul said if the time had been taken to have a look at his body of work, that would have already shown that it had gone across a number of different sectors.  It wasn't in any way addressed towards our ‑ you know what I mean, any particular effort.  First off I thought, well, we've got to take the heat out of it.  So the best thing to do is sit down and really sort of work out what are the key messages that we want to talk about, and for Abdul to be comfortable with it because at the end of the day Abdul was going to be the spokesperson for it.  And that does put him in a position of not jeopardy or risk but it's an uncomfortable situation to be in to have to justify.  And whatever you say in a situation where it's got heat like this, it can evolve into something that's got its own life.  So we spent a bit of time talking to Abdul about exactly what he felt comfortable talking and how far he wanted to address it.  There were obvious things that we could go out and be critical at the start with, but we sort of discussed, like, let's keep it simple and explain his position in a really metered way where a statement was produced.  Then we took the opportunity to find a journalist that we felt would be like‑minded or be respectful of the content that we were providing and would give us a fair go.  So that was really important, those two elements, I think.  At first, you know, you've got to be factual and fair.  And that way you take the heat out of the argument.  

ESTHER:   Especially when it's the intention is to create that heat. 

JANE:   Yep. 

ESTHER:   You can imagine a situation where, you know, what they're doing, those kinds of people, is wanting to inflame something so that the artist does come across as insensitive, unfeeling, you know, and they come across as the hero, the moral guardian. 

JANE:   Mmm. 

ESTHER:   Yeah, utterly bizarre.  Let's talk a bit ‑ you're saying Jane having to think about the kinds of things that Abdul would and would not feel comfortable talking about.  And something that, you know, it's quite natural to feel reluctant about particularly for any artist, about making yourself the story and making your personal story the story.  Abdul, tell us about that sort of tension that you faced about particularly when they're talking about veterans' issues, and you want your work, you know, to kind of speak for itself.  Tell us about that tension that you faced within, well, how much of my story do I tell here?  And my family's story. 

ABDUL:   There was a couple of things that I wanted to be really careful of.  One of them is first off I'm really happy for my work and I think most artists are to be openly interpreted.  And one of the dangers are they're going to be misinterpreted or interpreted in a way that's damaging but you want to leave that door open so there's a little bit of beauty in the work and a little bit of critical engagement.  And it's not often it goes pear, it doesn't go as bad as it did in this situation.  I was cautious initially talking to journalists from previous experience where I've had similarly uncontentious works in my opinion are exhibited in the art gallery of Western Australia in 2016 where there was a petition to have the exhibition closed, there was talk‑back radio, letters to the editor and that sort of thing.  But by isolating it, I didn't necessarily ‑ it seemed to go away within a couple of days.  It was just like a bit of an uproar before the exhibition opened.  That was entirely to do with my brother and I's names associated with a taxpayer funded gallery being the state Gallery of Western Australia and then people assuming that we were terrorists and their tax dollars were going to support terrorism.  And that was absurd and that went away.  I kind of thought that would be the case with this one but because it went to someone in the national Parliament it became a lot bigger a lot quicker.  One thing that was really not want ‑ want not to do is centre myself in the composition.  Because it became a conversation about censorship, about politics.  Quite clearly it became a conversation about art funding and that was an angle they were taking.  Initially it was a conversation about identity politics and assumed I was attacking an identity they had.  But then it became how their tax dollars is spent on this sort of thing.  Regardless of the fact I'm not getting paid necessarily for that but the fact that their tax dollars went to support a museum that was supporting the exhibition of these in their mind contentious works.  I didn't want to be in the centre of that.  One of the things that I was very resistant to talking about ‑ resistance is the wrong word ‑ but was cautious was the fact of my own family's military history, the fact I'm seventh generation Australian, had two grandfathers ‑ great grandfathers served in world war 1 and both grandfathers served in World War II as well as another great grandfather who was taken as a POW in World War II by the Japanese.  I've got extended family in the military at the moment, in the navy.  Part of that family history and story.  But that shouldn't matter because I could have come to this country yesterday and still had this conversation.  Like, my personal history with that, it shouldn't justify what I was doing.  But I think it was the conversation and the ‑ especially the initial ‑ well, not just the initial;  the whole conversation was motivated by the fact that they had made a whole bunch of assumptions about my name and what I represented because I think if those same images... 

ESTHER:   Has Abdul just frozen?  I think I'm having a technical problem. 

JANE:   He has. 

ESTHER:   He has. 

JANE:   Which is a shame. 

ESTHER:   Thank you.  Hopefully he can still hear us.  But, yeah, I think it's just recapping what he said until he rejoins us that situation where, yeah, assumptions, false assumptions were absolutely made simply on the basis of his name.  And I can think of very few families I know who have had that history of military service and my God, you know, being a POW as well.  

One thing that Abdul said I would like to ask you about, Jane, was he talked about, you know, perhaps what ‑ one of the things that the politicians were saying that they felt affronted by was that Abdul was, perhaps, you know, taking on or, you know, claiming an identity in their eyes that they thought was theirs.  No, no, we're the Aussies, we're the defenders, we're, you know, the RSL people.  And like, you know, kind of ‑ that sense of how dare you.  How on earth do you kind of come up with, yeah, a strategic response to in a media situation where you're having this very kind of lowest common denominator where what issues are we going to deal with because you can't have that conversation in the media, can you?  

JANE:   No, and there were so many elements to unpack.  As you can see from Abdul he is so articulate and he explains it beautifully. 

ESTHER:   Yeah. 

JANE:   When he first said I feel a bit reluctant, I was like my goodness, the way you articulate is ‑ like he explains it beautifully.  You are the perfect example to put in front of media because he is sensitive and he does understand.  He did understand it was assumptions based on his name and that sort of stuff which is horrible.  We didn't actually attack that first.  Is Abdul back?  We didn't attack that first.  We went more to the sentiment that artists need to be expressed.  And you can interpret however which way you want but you can't make assumptions.  And he beautifully explained that.  And I think when he explained about his history he wasn't justifying I'm not doing ‑ he was just explaining this is my background.  This is what my artwork is.  This is what I thought it was, you know, representing.  And it was a really ‑ it was more about mental health than anything.  I think it had a really strong helpful message for people serving in the army than what they took from it which is really disappointing they would take that.  That was based on people wanting to make something out of really ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ESTHER:   Yeah. 

JANE:   It was unfair on Abdul. 

ESTHER:   Totally. 

JANE:   People like Abdul who can explain things in such a clear way, the job's done, really, in many ways.  And as long as you get a channel that someone's going to be respectful when you explain it, I think ‑ and we didn't ‑ we didn't go out ‑ like the channels we picked to go and address it was someone we thought was media balanced and we didn't go straight into his electorate which would give him more steam.  We took it away from his electorate and we spoke to it from a different State because he made it national.  So it didn't allow him to get the power in his electorate by doing it that way.  So the discussion came from Sydney with a Sydney paper that went across the eastern sea board, you know what I mean. 

ESTHER:   That is a really important point.  That's a really important point.  Of course, what he was ‑ going back to the sort of motivations, what that councillor was hoping to achieve was to build his local profile.  So that he could build alliances that would support him in his run for mayor in the local government elections.  So that's, yeah, an important strategy.  Sometimes you go through a media strategy where you want to target certain electorates because you want some key decision‑maker to feel the heat or positivity in their electorate but in this situation, yeah, exactly.  Abdul, just before we were just saying that impossibility of having a complex, you know, cultural interpretive conversation the media compared to having to sort of simplify something down, was that really ‑ was that kind of difficult to engage in and were you relieved to be able to simplify it down to just some basics?  

ABDUL:   It certainly was.  And I'm just reading some of the comments on the side.  And ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ESTHER:   Great. 

ABDUL:   ‑ ‑ ‑ I want to respond to. 

ESTHER:   Great. 

ABDUL:   The mischaracterisation for me wasn't a huge issue but it was the outcomes of that mischaracterisation that were.  The fact the gallery was put under like immense pressure where they I understand were receiving a lot of emails and a lot of threatening things.  People were coming into the space and making threats.  There was that level of safety that was ‑ like I didn't feel it directly.  Like I've been getting this stuff since having any type of public profile but the gallery staff themselves were being affected by it.  And then the mayor of Mackay who was really supportive initially ‑ and throughout he was really supportive ‑ but he made the decision to take the work down after being contacted by a local motorcycle club and veterans' group who had taken on that mischaracterisation.  So when it came down to a level of threat to people that weren't me, that's when we felt that we really needed to put a step forward into it and ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ESTHER:   Yeah. 

ABDUL:   ‑ ‑ ‑ not let it wash over us.  In terms of handling it, it was a real relief but I didn't ‑ I knew that I didn't want to engage necessarily with Sky News or even Channel Nine.  I saw some of their reporting of it and even the framing of their questions was for me personally quite troubling where they were ‑ they presented the work as deliberately offensive and then were asking veterans' responses to it.  And there were peculiar ‑ there was stuff they just pulled out from I don't know where, people were saying I was comparing veterans' to Blackburners and things like this.  I don't understand where they got from that or pulled that from or conflating another person's work with mine or something like that but that became the narrative which is really unfortunate.  But then speaking to the Guardian, the ABC, they gave me the time to talk through the work and talk through the problem, where there wasn't ‑ there wasn't a journalist who was trying to give me a gotcha moment.  I think I would be okay in those situations where I can speak to the issues in the work but I felt that there was a level playing field in those sorts of examples and mostly that they were ‑ there was going to be some integrity in that conversation as opposed to making it just ‑ turning it into a sound byte they could use to warp something out.  When it was spoken about on The Drum, I wasn't involved in that at all, but it was a healthy conversation.  Even the people that were taking an opposite side to me, I guess, they seemed to come around a bit or at least be revealed to have a few biases they didn't necessarily want to be revealed.  I think there was definitely silver linings in the end and it worked out for the best but it was very troubling.  I was getting lots of messages of support and from veterans which is really encouraging and really nice.  Also what was discouraging was being told of some of the conversations being had in private veterans' groups on Facebook and the like that were very, very offended by what they understood my intention to be. 

ESTHER:   You know, just as you were describing that experience of being ‑ of it being discussed on The Drum, it's just kind of like that's what art is for, to elicit that critical response.  I guess one thing that's really important to emphasise in our whole discussion here is that of course there is a huge difference between a critical response that is not necessarily what we agree with, that is not necessarily what we expected, that opens up, you know, might create discomfort that, you know, discomfort, of course, reprograms the brain.  We start thinking differently.  We open ourselves up to different thoughts, and of course is the role of art.  But that's ‑ that is different from wilful political manipulative interpretation or co‑option of some kind.  Now, we've got a couple of questions that people are asking, and I want to a bit later turn to the question that Shelley has asked which is about how can organisations better protect.  I'm going to ask Jane as well how she negotiated the difference between Abdul's voice and my voice in the public at that time.  And also Bronwyn's question about the preemptive preparatory thinking.  The question is I would like to know how Abdul managed his well‑being throughout this particularly given the trolling and hateful messages targeting his site, his work and his practice.  

Abdul, it was an awful experience.  We had a lot of conversations about this at the time.  How did you get through that?  

ABDUL:   It was very unpleasant.  Like, there's no two bones about it it, I guess.  It was not a great time.  And you're feeling pretty miserable when you're getting these direct things to you especially, especially hearing about how the gallery staff were treated by people coming into the space.  A lot of good stories coming up but the negativity sort of outweighs that sort of thing.  I've got a few friends who had experienced much worse, so there was conversations had with them.  So Osmond is a friend of mine.  They have experienced it significantly more than I have.  Talking through things, these types of conversations brought us closer together, I guess, in a way but sort of talking to these, yeah, talking through these issues with people that were close to me was very, very helpful. 

ESTHER:   That stuff is so important.  Jane, how do you advise people when they're going through a media shit storm and you know it's going to get worse before it gets better, what do you say to people that you work with?  

JANE:   Well, the first thing I remind people is often it's 20 per cent ‑ or less than 20 per cent of people doing 80 per cent of the talking.  So really what you're getting is, like, a lot of talk probably from very few people who are very narrow minded.  So I always try and say straight off you've got to take the ‑ you know, don't ‑ you know, it's so few who are making this big loud voice.  It's not everyone's opinion.  It's not out there.  It's just that they're doing most of the talking.  So if you can try and frame it like that, you can make yourself feel healthier, you know what I mean.  It's not everyone against you.  I think with everything, especially with mental health, one thing becomes bigger and bigger and bigger.  I try and say it's a little person.  It's a smaller issue but we need to attack that issue clearly and how we're going to go about it.  But without attacking them because I think you've got to do it so it doesn't allow them more juice to their argument, but allows how you explain it to be clear and to nullify it, or at least present the other argument so they're in a difficult position, to sort of keep ‑ to keep maintaining these misconceptions.  That's the first thing we do.  

The second thing I always try and say to people is if it's really bad, just get off social media.  You know what I mean?  It's another world.  I mean, turn it off.  It's like you know when people say, "Oh, I can't believe that guy is saying that."  Well, you don't have to watch it.  It's the same with social media.  Sometimes it's healthier to get off it and let other people deal with it.  That was the other thing, you know, sometimes the artist might not be the best person to make the argument.  Abdul was in this case.  Otherwise it's people like yourself, Esther, organisations as independents that can talk about it as an issue separate and allow that heat to move away from that person.  So there's all different things that we can do to protect the artist.  But I think Abdul ‑ he did beautifully.  

ESTHER:   I agree.  I agree.  Now, I'm just going to post the link again to the piece on our website about this.  I'm a little worried about our internet connection tonight with each other.  So I'm not going to share the screen.  I assume everyone is in front of a computer and you can also press this button.  So click on that link and you will see the statement that NAVA put out.  It gives you now an example ‑ we've got an image there of one of the pieces that we've just been talking about, Abdul's Young and Free.  We put out a media release artists speak out about censorship of work dealing with the emotional toll of war.  You can see we gave it some context, we said again because this was a NAVA statement we talked about what we did in response.  So also so that members and others know the kinds of things that we do.  We talked about that meeting that Abdul was describing which was the roundtable with the mayor of Mackay Regional Council.  There's a statement from Abdul where he's being extraordinarily clear and patient, you know, "I fully understand that people have strong views about people representing our nation and I have nothing but the greatest respect for Australian Service men and women. It saddens me that the works have been interpreted to suggest otherwise. I have always been here to talk through my creative intent and remain so.  Let’s not censor art that provokes important discussions about what matters to all of us who care about what makes us who we are as a nation." And having presented Abdul's voice in that way my voice could then be a lot more critical.  "What’s happened here is so unfair. It’s deeply unfair to the veterans and veterans’ groups who’ve been misled on work they never saw by an artist they never met. It’s unfair to the public gallery professionals who expertly facilitate sensitive arts experiences for community members every day. It’s unfair to Abdul Abdullah’s career and reputation, and it’s unfair to all of the artists in this important exhibition. Art has an extraordinary power to search our emotions and focus meaningful responses to the most difficult challenges we face. Politicised attacks on art are a lazy way of preventing careful, sophisticated engagement with those issues – and with one another" And then I thanked the gallery, etcetera, etcetera.  So that sort of gives an example then ‑ this is one of many different statements.  This is the biggest statement, obviously, we're all interviewed in media as well.  But that's been an example of distinguishing between the voice that we each want to have in a public debate and, you know, trying to kind of also represent very clearly that a lot of people had been going out of their way to be, you know, good and supportive at that time.  Especially, you know, when you think about people at Mackay ‑ Art Space Mackay which is a public gallery.  It's a gallery that is owned by local government.  Its staff are the staff of local government but they are also, of course, deeply connected to their community and deeply connected to a national and international arts conversation.  

Let me now go to a couple more of the questions.  Yeah, so a few people here saying let's go to Rebecca's question, and then we will go to the organisational question.  Rebecca says bravo.  I have found it's important to prioritise giving interviews to outlets or journalists who aren't after the gotcha sensationalism.  It's hard to watch them cover the story anyway in their alarmist and divisive way.  Question to both Abdul and Jane:  how do you navigate choosing which outlets or journalists to engage with?  Maybe ‑ let me give that one to Jane.  Tell us, what is the role of a publicist?  

JANE:   The role of the publicist in this situation I was working for NAVA.  And they brought the situation and we sat down and said Abdul was in this situation, how can we support him, how can we change the conversation in the media.  Because it was getting out of hand.  But also, we went back first off and looked at what were the motivations for the story in the first instance from why was this sparked?  What was the benefit for the people that were sparking it?  And as Esther you appropriately explained that it was like a political agenda.  So first off we decided in choosing was we weren't going to go into that State first or into that electorate because that gives them fire and to keep going through with their local contacts, they could actually excite it, use media effectively.  Then we thought in terms of selecting media you've got to look at media that's got a common voice or a common objectivity that people treat the subject matter in a respectful way.  And that does remove you from certain media straight away.  The second thing was because it was quite a complex issue to unpack, I thought it was really important that we put it in print first for Abdul's response because by doing it in print the written words there, it does get over a syndicated further.  But in print he can't be misrepresented if it's his quotes and what he said.  I know people are misquoted.  So, again, we went for a more ‑ like a journalist that was well respected and we knew worked closely and had a knowledge of the art world as well.  Had a knowledge of Abdul's work.  Because that gave that person context as well.  

So once it was in print media it allows you to then manage it out.  Because unfortunately a lot of what media can sometimes do is they use one reference to actually ‑ they use that reference, and other media use that as their point of reference to then take it to the next step.  So if that first point is clearly and well positioned, then hopefully when it's amplified through other media channels, it's amplified in context and with stronger messaging that's more in line with what we were trying to say.  So that's how ‑ so you've got to first find a person.  And also someone you have a genuine relationship with is helpful because you know ‑ you have a feeling where they're going to go with it.  And you have a respectful conversation at the start as a publicist before and say, "This is a situation for Abdul.  He's not comfortable.  He feels, you know, like he is being used in a political agenda."  What we're trying to say is we don't want him to be politicised any further.  We want his position to be explained.  And then outside that we would like if you need more of a political analogy or analysis on it we prefer you to go to someone like Esther, the body that represents the artists to have that conversation.  Because that's not what Abdul's ‑ you know, that's not where he is or his place where he wants to speak or where he wants to be connected.  His artwork speaks for itself.  We're just putting it back in context and saying he's being misrepresented.  Then let's move on to the bodies that then work that should ‑ can have this conversation in the media and make it more balanced.  Because it was just so out of balance.  That was the whole problem. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  

JANE:   So that's picking the channels.  And, you know, Abdul was right, we couldn't go with some of the media that he mentioned because they were going for gotcha moments, and they already had shown what their agenda was so we had to go somewhere else. 

ESTHER:   I think that's a critical ‑ how you describe that building of a long‑term relationship, the ‑ you know, being able to set those limits around Abdul that then, you know, protect the artist but also I think about representation in this context, there's, you know, being represented and misrepresented.  And how that comes across in the media.  But also, Abdul, I imagine one reason why many artists would be concerned about being a media spokesperson in general or speaking to the media is that sense of suddenly because of the way that some conversations play out in the media, suddenly you're being asked these questions where it's almost like the expectation is that you're representing artists or you're speaking for everyone in a particular group or cultural group or veterans lineage group or something.  How uncomfortable is that, when you find yourself in that position?  Tell us about that because I think it is a serious concern. 

ABDUL:   Yeah, it's always difficult.  Like, I've got the echo again, I'm sorry.  It's weird.  

ESTHER:   Oh.  

ABDUL:   It's always difficult.  In my situation I've been ‑ I'm going to take the headphones off and just talk. 

ESTHER:   Okay.  

ABDUL:   It's always been a situation where I've been thought of as a spokesperson for Muslims across the country as well as being a spokesperson for artists.  It's difficult terrain to navigate.  But I also feel a sense of obligation to provide that alternative voice because there have been so many poor examples of that and I think poor examples of artists in media as well.  Like if you look ‑ I will say it, if you look at Tim Storey's appearance on Q&A it made artists look pretty bad.  Things like that, we all have an obligation to do it, if you can do it, to be the voice and to not be so frustrated.  It's hard not to be frustrated by the voices that are so prominent.  We should make an effort to make our own voices prominent, I suppose.  What do they say, rising tide lifts all ships.  You're just correcting the narrative a bit or pulling it away from people who have had so much of that media spotlight.  Can you guys see me okay?  

JANE:   Yeah. 

ABDUL:   Does that make sense?  

ESTHER:   That's exactly.  I'm so glad you've said that because this is so much of what we would like to achieve through this program.  As we were saying last week we're going to soon release a survey, an application process for those of you here this evening and others to put your hands up to be advocates or media spokes people on Arts Day on the Hill.  That's going to add to our workshops every week.  We're going, with you and with others, you know, hone those skills through that focus on that one day on 12 August that build skills we can use in the future.  The way you've just put it, Abdul, is so spot on.  The contrast between, well, I don't want to be put in the position where suddenly I'm representing all Greeks, all queers, whoever, then but if there were more of us, if there were more artists who were speaking, then it wouldn't be so incumbent on every individual rare artist to feel like they were speaking on behalf of all artists. 

ABDUL:   Yeah, the idea of speaking as an art artist as opposed to ‑ sorry, the echo is crazy. 

ESTHER:   That's so annoying. 

ABDUL:   That's what I'm trying to say.  

ESTHER:   Yeah.  Yeah.  Exactly.  We will totally build some skills in that area.  Thank you to Leya who has posted Arts Day on the Hill on 12 August, to tell you a little about that.  There's no representation anyone other than ourselves.  The minutes we're... waiting to be shot down in flames."  That's the thing.  The way Jane and Abdul just described how you would support someone, what you would say, it goes to that really kind of fundamental basic truth of, like, if you be yourself then that's the only thing people can pick you up on.  So if you're speaking to the media and you're being yourself, in the parameters that you're comfortable to answer questions on, then that's it.  That's ‑ it's knowing how it works, the kinds of things they might ask you, I think it's critical that Jane was talking about the difference ‑ and Abdul ‑ the difference between a gotcha moment and a relationship with a journalist who you know is going to unpack the issues, the difference between the piece that is a durable piece where you know the issues will be unpacked.  Now, I want to go to the question ‑ ‑ ‑ 

JANE:   Can I make one ‑ can I just do one other point. 

ESTHER:   Yeah. 

JANE:   And Abdul really on the day, we talked about it and it was really important point.  I think Abdul would agree.  Is if you're doing a piece which is for a newspaper and they send a photographer, when Abdul was getting photographed we didn't want ‑ like, they try ‑ they go Abdul can you stand there and look wantingly out to the distance with your artwork in the thing.  But we were saying to the ‑ we don't want Abdul to look pissed off, basically.  We don't want it to add fire that here is this angry Muslim that's coming down, is going I'm not this, I'm not that.  So we spent a lot of time going to the photographer, "We don't like this."  He was sort of going really arty too, which was lovely but also at the end of the day we were going, "Maybe we could dial back the arty, because he's an artist.  They know that.  Can we not do Abdul in front of his artwork in smiling".  Like a normal guy. 

JANE:   Being Abdul, you know what I mean, but as opposed to ‑ it was starting to go down the route.  I think as well a picture paints a thousand words.  So if you are doing a story you need to think when they're ‑ they're just going for a shot and the shot is just as much the story as what comes out of your mouth.  So it's really important that when you do it you consider how the artist is going to look at it or think of the worst context of the story and then think of the shot that they're taking next to it.  If it doesn't sit right you've got to stop it and you've got to go, "I don't want that.  I don't want that."  We were lucky there was a couple that were taken that we weren't really ‑ didn't want to put up.  There were some shockers in there, Abdul.  But we said, "Okay, we know you have to give five or six options but seriously this one cannot be one of them."  If I had have dived in front of the camera ‑ I should have done that at the time ‑ but, again, we were trying to manage it. 

ESTHER:   I'm so glad you raised it.  A picture paints a thousand words.  Particularly how you scroll your social media feed what passes for our engagement with news these days is the image that, you know, pops up in the preview.  And then maybe you read the headline and of course you make a judgment.  And, oh, well, you know, there's that ‑ you know, that crazy person doing something, like, you know, I've made my judgment because the headline has skewed it.  It's a great example of this from ‑ I think it was last year or maybe the year before when the artist Ben Quilty there was an interview with him for what was Weekend Magazine.  They spent an hour or more doing a photo shoot with him.  And the photo they chose to put on the cover was one ‑ he had a wreath of thorns around his head.  Now, a magazine particularly when an image lands on the cover you can assume that a lot of people will see that magazine cover and never open it up to see the story.  So they're going to make a certain, you know, judgment based on that image.  I have spoken to him about this since and he said, "Oh, you know, they took so many photos I didn't know it was going to be that one."  But of course once you've posed in that particular way, you have given your consent for that to be used.  And so exactly as Jane says, like even if ‑ you know, it could be an easy thing to have a photo and not have that done before, but please when you're in that situation you can say no to things.  You are able to control your image. 

JANE:   You just have to say no I'm not going to do that.  You're not being a diva.  You're just saying that's not how I want to be ‑ also, you know, if it is trying to be too arty on top of being an artist, it also makes you feel a bit ridiculous, you know, by the end of the time, you know what I mean?  It's like dial it back and just put me.  And also because it was a serious topic I guess we didn't want it to be treated like an artist being etherial as well.  There are so many contexts ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ABDUL:   I think you have to control the content. 

ESTHER:   Exactly.  That control is vital. 

JANE:   Yeah. 

ESTHER:   Let's talk about the role of organisations in supporting artists and defending artists.  And we've had a number of questions on this.  I'm going to bring them altogether so we can ‑ we've got 10 minutes left.  So we'll wrap up the conversation talking about that.  So I'm just scrolling back.  So Bronwyn Coulston has asked what the best preemptive or preparatory thinking an artist can do when they know a work is something some people could take offence to.  How do we support artists and ensure the criticism comes to the organisation, not the artist.  There's also a question from Shelley how can organisations better protect artists given the exhibition has had prior approval by a team of people and lastly usually the director or manager.  And then scrolling, scrolling, the question from Anna Glynn was Abdul's first response to go to NAVA for help not arts law, for example, and did Abdul have a lawyer.  In this situation, of course, what's happened isn't yet a legal problem.  There are certain legal implications but it is an issue of profile, reputation, political relationships.  Abdul, how did you see NAVA's role in that, as a member?  

ABDUL:   I think NAVA was ‑ sorry to keep my headphones like this?  

ESTHER:   Very smart actually.  I'm going to use that in the future. 

ABDUL:   NAVA was a peak representative body so that's why I wanted to speak with but I also went to arts law and got advice from them.  I wanted to cover all my bases and see what the potential legal ramifications could be for myself.  And what standing I had in this conversation.  So we had a long conversation with arts law and they gave me some really great advice.  And I think it was important to speak to all those organisations. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  Absolutely.  The question of the preparatory work, every gallery goes through a risk management process, especially ones that are owned by government.  And this is one of those situations where despite a gallery having gone through that and, again, as we were saying earlier despite four and a half thousand people having seen it as well as who knows how many people in New Zealand, some situations like this, you know, are sort of hard to preempt.  But then on the other hand maybe in the current age the threat of deliberate political manipulation or misrepresentation should be in the risk registers of organisations as they go through.  I know when I've run big festivals I used to prepare a whole book like a risk management of every single show in the festival, key messages for politicians in response, like just the whole bit you sort of do in a, all right, let's preempt it.  The last thing you want is the premier or the Prime Minister ‑ generally the premier to be on talkback radio and completely unknown to them they get asked a question about this show in this festival.  The worst thing you want ‑ the worst thing is for them to feel flustered and attack the artist.  That's what happened some years ago.  You will recall the Bill Hanson situation where the gallery published an invitation to an exhibition opening and that triggered a whole range of things.  We won't get into them now because it's too long to talk about.  But the response of the Prime Minister at the time was to say that Bill Henson's work was disgusting which was absolutely extraordinary because the then opposition Arts Minister which was Malcolm Turnbull and actually did speak up on behalf of Bill Henson, actually owned his work in his collection and unfortunately was one of the only people at the federal level at the time to speak up in favour of Bill Henson.  Just astounding.  There is time for a few more questions but I'm also going to scroll back ‑ ‑ ‑ 

ABDUL:   I just wanted to say that Art Space Mackay was really supportive through the whole processes.  Nothing against the organisation.  It kind of came out of the blue this particular type of attack. 

ESTHER:   Yeah.  Absolutely.  Big respect to the Art Space Mackay team.  I know there's at least one colleague there this evening.  I have really appreciated the conversations we all had and going in together in that meeting. 

ABDUL:   And the curators too.  Clare Watson was amazing.  I know of other situations where artists have been in similar things they haven't had the curatorial support.  But in my case they were really supportive.  The echo, I'm sorry. 

ESTHER:   So annoying.  Clare is saying big respect Art Space Mackay.  Hear, hear.  Clare and Yiani were just enormously strong going through this, also feeling ‑ you know, this is a show with a number of artists including a number of First Nations artists, the artists also got together to consider and then make a statement.  It was one of those extraordinary experiences for everyone.  We've got just a couple of minutes left.  Jane and Abdul, through this and reflecting back now what are just some... for people in responding to media in situations like this?  Let's start with Jane.  What's a learning from this?  

JANE:   Wow.  I think a learning that Abdul went about is that he did contact you and NAVA to bring in some help that was outside of him by an independent that was working within the sector and could represent him.  I think that was a really knowledgeable thing to do because it allowed us to create ‑ like I said, create a statement and do the work for him as much as we could to support him.  And people need to know that they're not alone in this, do you know what I mean?  By going to your body like NAVA, that's what it's there for.  It's there to help.  I think that was a really good learning because it managed what was going is a really bad time as much as Abdul still had more difficult times ahead we were able to at least change some of the direction of the conversation and were able to reposition the narrative.  By the end of it, like Abdul said, it became a healthy discussion.  So I think if you ‑ you do need to reach out to people that have the expertise to help you.  Sometimes these things have a life and a body of their own and it's hard to cut the head off them.  But other times you can do it.  And use those services that are there.  That's why you become a member of NAVA.  That's why your membership with these bodies are really important, is that they can provide that support and, you know, engage people like myself to help.  Because everyone wants to help and make the narrative change to be positive.  We need positive discussions around art and what it can do for Australia. 

ESTHER:   Yeah. 

JANE:   And it is a part of the cultural conversation.  And we need to make sure that it's a positive conversation that's allowing people to have different views, but also be represented fairly.  So the diversity of Australia can be celebrated and respected.  And that's all you want at the end of the day is to have that honesty and that authentic discussion in media.  So use the facilities and the services that are there for you I think is a great learning in this case. 

ESTHER:   A hundred per cent.  Thanks, Jane.  Abdul.  Oh, we have just lost your audio again.  No.  No.  Oh my God.  This is just bizarre.  All right.  Hopefully we will come back.  It would be wonderful to bring Abdul back for final, yeah, what are the learnings from this.  I remember this as an enormously turbulent time.  I felt pulled in so many directions wanting Abdul to have the, you know, best and most positive least traumatic experience through this and the curators as well.  What was the learning, Abdul?  I am really hoping the sound is back. 

ABDUL:   Can you hear me?  

ESTHER:   Yes.  But it's very quiet. 

ABDUL:   I'm just speaking closer to the microphone. 

ESTHER:   We will huddle in.  

ABDUL:   One thing ‑ absolutely is to get help like going to NAVA, going to arts law, going to organisations, getting advice from people.  Also another thing I wanted to add is take your time and try not to take it personally.  Try not to get defensive.  Take a step back and you're not ‑ even though in a situation like this a journalist might make you feel like you're in a hurry to respond, they might put you in the situation where you've got your back to the wall but time is on your side, I think, and it's worthwhile thinking things through and making sure your responses are really considered because it can so easily get out of hand all over again. 

JANE:   Good point. 

ESTHER:   It certainly can.  Well, through all of that big respect to the Art Space Mackay team, to the curators, Clare Watson and Yiani.  And everyone please join me in the chat noting equivalent of applause, please join me in thanking Abdul Abdullah and Jane Morey.  It's been such a fantastic conversation.  Thank you so, so much.  

JANE:   Thank you.  Thank you. 

ESTHER:   Thank you.  Now, we're going to farewell Jane and Abdul and I am going to get in touch with them tomorrow.  Thank you so much for joining us.  And we're going to continue our conversation and unpack some of that.  So they're going to press those buttons which means they will probably vanish soon.  Wave them good bye.  Thanks everyone for noting claps.  A lot of you saying love the T‑shirt.  Totally beautiful, be kind.  Perfect. 

ABDUL:   See you, guys. 

ESTHER:   Thanks, Abdul.  Talk soon.  Bye.  So a lot of comments then about the kinds of things it would be great to do including things like media training and legal training, we should totally do some dedicated media training workshops later in the year and maybe we will do an extra one of these ahead of Arts Day on the Hill.  Let's see how we go.  But I'm now just tracking back on some of the questions to see what we have missed and then go into some broader conversation with everyone about what we just heard and how we might be able to apply that.  

So a couple of times Jane or Abdul mentioned a gotcha moment that journalists do.  Does anyone know what gotcha moment is?  And it does relate to what Jane was just saying about ‑ and Abdul was just saying about taking our time and, you know, thinking about how we respond.  What's a gotcha moment?  What's a gotcha moment that you have seen where you've absolutely seen a journalist turning, orienting their questions to get to a gotcha moment.  We've all seen it.  Bianca Couchman is saying catching them out saying something outside their formal statement.  That can be an example of one.  Caz says when you're stressed setting up exhibition ‑ I think she hit enter ‑ it kind of vanishes away.  Yeah, a gotcha moment is ‑ it's kind of ‑ sometimes it can be politically useful.  Sometimes it can be lazy journalism.  We see this on live interviews all the time.  When a journalist is ‑ have already ‑ they've already set up in their mind what they want the person that they're interviewing to say.  And they're just driving questions at them to get them to say this one particular controversial thing that they plan to frame their entire story around.  So it could be about catching out a politician, about, you know, something that they don't want to admit to.  It could be about, yeah, putting an artist in a position where they might come across as saying something that how do you say fulfils or meets a preconception, a cliched image about a journalist might have about what an artist is.  Clare is saying it is basically manipulation.  Rob is saying it's wanting to make someone look hypocrite call by asking leading questions to get someone to contradict themselves and sound inauthentic.  That's a really great summary, Rob.  It's absolutely trying to have someone say something that they wouldn't ordinarily want to say.  Something that might, yeah, make them seem inauthentic so they can be attacked, you know, as being inauthentic.  And something that's, yeah, going to be the thing ‑ again, I call it lazy journalism because it's kind of ‑ instead of speaking with that person and asking, like genuinely asking questions with the aim being how can I understand this better, what can I draw out of this, yeah, Caz Willis says looking for the contentious sound byte.  Particularly with social media that a clip can be cut that can only be a few seconds long when you've got the gotcha moment you can, you know, suddenly get a lot of clicks and shares because you've shared this thing out of context.  

Some politicians manipulate this.  And someone who I thought did it kind of intriguingly well in a sort of daggy dad sort of way was Bill Shorten.  I don't know if you remember Bill's zingers or journalists used to call them where he would say something that was deliberately tacky or a bad joke or dad joke as they're sometimes called so that that would be quoted.  And that's an extreme end of, you know, a politician saying something that, you know, they want that to end up in the news.  And you hear politicians ‑ you know, you will see them doing that all the time.  But there are some lessons we can take out of the gotcha moment.  How could we ‑ what's one way that you could manipulate this to your advantage if you have a journalist who is asking you those kinds of questions, like really kind of leading questions.  What's a way, do you think, that you could manipulate this to serve you?  Got a few people typing some questions there.  It's particularly ‑ and I'm going to have a go at sharing the NAVA Advocacy Program guide if we have a problem with the technology I will switch it off but tell me if on the screen now you can see the cover of part 3:  Understanding the Media.  Which is on the website now.  Thanks, Rob.  Again, available to NAVA members.  Our program, of course, is available free for everyone, but to make sure we are supporting and serving NAVA members, this guide and handbook is available just for NAVA members.  And, of course, membership starts at just $7.50 per month.  And Leya, thank you for posting there the link to that NAVA Advocacy Handbook.  Last week we talked a little bit about why is it so hard for the arts to make news, the kind of things that are news values, and in terms of being a media spokesperson there are some activities, we were talking about becoming a source, knowing the angle and reframing the question.  And then also some activities that you can do as a group to be able to practise in speaking to a journalist.  One way, I guess, of, you know, if you know that a journalist is asking you questions and they're looking for that sound byte that they're going to publish or print or share, one way of giving them that or achieving that is actually to give them one.  And so a really important part of preparing to speak to a journalist is to think about what you want to say.  What are the most important things that you would like to say in this interview?  What would you be really disappointed and frustrated by if the interview sort of flew by and that didn't come up?  And how can you describe that?  So, again, this sort of reframing the question.  But in particular, when we're talking to journalists we're, of course, talking to the public, the general public, because that's who they're writing for.  And so getting into those experiences of how would you describe your practice, your work to someone who has never heard of you before, who has never seen it, and taking ‑ even a zoom out from there, how would you describe it to someone who never visits studios or galleries.  Or worse, someone who might be a little bit hostile, that cliche of I don't know much about art but I know what I like.  You know, who are the groups that we're speaking to.  Has anyone got an experience where they've had that conversation with a journalist.  Rob is asking the question how can you avoid being led into everything being a dumbed down conversation?  And, yeah, that is an extremely frustrating one, Rob.  It goes to, I think, a lot of what Jane was saying earlier about the media outlet and understanding what they each do and who their audiences are.  So if you were doing an interview with, say, one of the tabloid papers, like one of the NewsCorp papers, the Herald Sun, the Daily Telegraph, those sorts of papers, they would probably ask an artist a lot of human interest type questions.  How did you become an artist, what other things do you do, how did you feel about something, and to really kind of, you know, humanise you as an artist or give a very generic kind of ‑ a very generic kind of overview.  But to avoid being led into everything being a dumbed down conversation, I think this is where we need that practice in describing your work and your practice, to someone who doesn't know anything about art.  So how can you have a conversation that uses really straightforward language and that is going to be really easy to quote and doesn't kind of over‑complicate something.  For example, what we just talked about with Abdul's work.  There were all sorts of critical response.  And people talked about the complexities of cultural representation, misappropriation, people talked about the inappropriateness of, you know, putting the artist in the position where they were being exploited, people talked about George Christiansen and the deliberate stepping into a local conflict to get a national angle, and the political complexities of what his party stands or and doesn't stand for.  It's also possible to have that conversation in ways that use completely non‑political or non‑artsy language.  You know, this person made a work and that work was used by someone else to achieve a different purpose.  When that happened war veterans were drawn into it and people became upset because they hadn't been told what the situation was.  You know, there's very straightforward ways of telling a story that allows someone else to draw their own conclusions, but then it also goes to that question of trust.  It is just so important.  Speaking of trust there are two examples that people have just included.  Vasiliki has said giving an interview what you thought was a story about a career progression of a young and non‑English speaking background woman and then the headline of the article that appears is titled along the lines of family repression... never be lulled into a false sense of security.  Sadly be on your guard about how easy it is to reveal more than you intend."  Thank you for telling us that example because that's an awful ‑ that is an awful thing to have happened and I think a really great example of, yeah, basic cultural manipulation and playing to stereotypes.  Michaela Nutt says she has been got by a journalist being very friendly and supportive to her during a difficult situation.  She's now dealing with an FOI request made by said journalist and these questions were based on what she had given away during a weak moment, sigh.  And that is just enormously ‑ when that happens and you feel like you were clear and articulate in what you wanted to say and then, yeah, they've gone and taken something.  What is a way then, do you think, that you can when you're approached by a journalist and all looks really good and positive, what are some things that you can do maybe to find out a little bit more, what would you do if you were approached by a journalist you had never heard of before and they were promising something really fantastic, what are some steps you can take to better inform yourself about the approach that they might take?  What do you think?  Especially now and in particular when, again, sort of fast‑moving world of social media ‑ I like what Jane said about, yes, you can also step away from social media.  So Michaela says ask what the angle is going to be.  That is supremely important.  Know your angle.  When you're being interviewed for a story unless the journalist is a freelancer pitching this to a magazine or publication, if they are a journalist working for some kind of paper, they have already decided on their angle before they've contacted you because they would have to have gone through a process where they pitch that angle to the editor, you know, I'm going to give you 750 words in two days and this is the angle, and this is why it's important and the editor will say, "Yes, you can go and pursue that."  And so they've already decided on what that is.  So absolutely ask them that question.  Or, you know, what will the focus of your story be?  What's your overall angle?  Why have you chosen to speak with me?  An example just given to us is after all you don't want to be the artist featured in a story whose values or politics don't align with yours.  Again, goes to what Abdul was saying about ‑ and Jane about choosing how you're photographed as well.  Rob is saying look them up.  Check the media outlet.  Get a sense of who you're talking to.  That's right.  I remember a couple of years ago being approached by the Daily Telegraph in Sydney by their editor at large.  And he wanted comment on the Geoffrey Rush case.  I was the former chair of a small to medium independent theatre company.  And Eryn Jean Norvill had been part of a small ensemble with our company, Elbow Room.  And the Daily Telegraph were doing everything they could to get women to speak on the record about Geoffrey Rush in that situation because as you all remember from that very awkward awful case, that was not a case about Eryn Jean Norvill the actor bringing an accusation of sexual harassment or assault against Geoffrey Rush.  That was Geoffrey Rush suing the Daily Telegraph for defamation because they had printed something that indicated that he had sexually harassed or assaulted Eryn Jean Norvill.  So it was this awful kind of backward situation where the Daily Telegraph wanted women to come forward and say, "Yes, this person does this sort of thing."  Not because they're feminist not because they're supporting Eryn Jean Norvill or other women in the industry but because they wanted to save money on a massive defamation payout.  The Daily Telegraph rings alarm bells as do other media outlets.  Of course no one wanted to speak to the Daily Telegraph.  Everyone wanted to support Eryn Jean.  Because if they do do a story about a strong woman in a difficult situation on one day, the next day and the day after they might then vilify that person.  They will find people to speak out against that person.  Their gutter columnists will write really hateful despicable racist things about that person.  So no ‑ very few people were willing to put themselves in that position.  And so there were actors and other artists who spoke to other media to get that story out.  But very few people spoke to the Daily Telegraph.  Caz Willis says now this is easy with hindsight but when a microphone is put in front of your face it is another situation.  Breathe deep, answer what you want, remain silent on ugly questions, live to air costs them money.  Absolutely correct.  If you're being interviewed live to air it doesn't only cost them money but the time is limited.  This goes to the point here in our kit about reframing the question.  If someone asks you a question you don't want to answer, there's no need to answer that question.  Especially live to air because, you know, there's a limited time.  They ask you a question you could say, "Look, you know, that's really interesting, you know, but what I'm interested in is blah."  You know, kind of off you go.  Or even just, yeah, completely segue to something else.  Something that I always advise people on ‑ and this goes to Caz's point about taking a breath ‑ I think that's, you know, any kind of good, you know, Alexander technique‑type training I totally recommend for everyone no matter what you do in life but something that's really important to do under those circumstances is when ‑ something I always warn people about is when you're asked a negative question, don't respond to it in a negative way.  This is like a gotcha moment where a journalist will say, "Oh, but you're really against this, aren't you?"  Or it will be a long question and it will lead to, you know, "You're absolutely against this, aren't you?"  So the angle for this story is, you know, I've got a story I've got to write.  I'm going to have my positive voices and my negative voices.  That's going to get the balance for my story because I have to present balanced views.  And I decide in my mind that so and so artist is the negative.  I'm going to ring them and say, "You're really against this."  Now, as soon as someone frames a question like that to you in that way but you're not really against it, if you say, "Oh, I'm not against that or I don't think blah."  As soon as you say what you're not thinking or what you are not against, the only thing anyone is thinking about is the thing you've just negated.  And this is a typical gotcha moment.  It's classic 70s TV as well for crime dramas.  I'm not a murderer, I'm not a paedophile.  As soon as you've said that, you've already created the impression in someone else's mind.  So when someone asks you a negative question you don't have to respond to it.  So you're really against this, aren't you?"  "What I'm really interested in is this, this and that.  These are the things that are important to me.  And that's why I create work about this."  So completely deflect.  And, yeah, if you don't want to ‑ I mean, you might want to do a negative interview but if you don't want to do a negative interview, you don't have to ask ‑ you don't have to respond in that way.  Becoming a source is good advice.  So whether it's about becoming ‑ again, this is useful for anyone who build long‑term relationships with arts' journalists.  And something that Jane was talking about when I asked her the question of what does it mean to be a publicist, 99 per cent of Jane's work you will never see because it is about the constant relationships that she is building with journalists so that when an issue happens she can be on the phone and say exactly what she was describing, "Look, this is the issue.  This is the kind of media that Abdul is getting.  You know, we need a sophisticated articulation."  That stuff is really important.  Rob has made a really important point about agreeing with each other and the echo chamber.  I agree with all these points of a media outlet... how this plays in the echo chamber where readers of a particular media outlet never hear the other side of the story.  But then there's not much we can do if we make comments that will be misrepresented."  Again this is why ‑ good point, Rob.  This is why I really stress building the relationships with the arts' journalists.  And, you know, becoming a source that they will approach.  Because even in those hostile papers who have got the appalling columnists who really, you know, it's awful that these people still have platforms, even those newspapers employ arts' journalists who are as passionate about the arts as we are.  And they feel really lucky to be the one arts' journalist left, or, you know, how it's all playing out in a different media.  They want to get to know us.  They want to present the great art story that is going to give their audience a different view.  And this goes to the dumbing down question of earlier as well, where it can seem insulting to be asked certain questions.  Again, if you're speaking to a journalist for a paper and it's not live to air, you can say, "Oh, look, I think, you know, that's a really ‑ I'm worried that is a simplistic question and it's going to not give me the best way of answering you.  Do you think you could ask that question again or you could ask me a little bit differently?  Because I want to respond to that but I worry the way you've phrased it it's just not bringing to mind the ideas that I want to express."  So you can always kind of push back and say, you know, this is ‑ you know, I want to talk to you but, yeah, this is just not feeling quite right.  

Now, as we know, in some weeks' time we are all going to get together on Arts Day on the Hill which is about achieving a critical mass on social media and in the media in order to make sure that there is a really good, solid prominence of arts issues in the media in connecting with MPs online, and so on, and all of these workshops have been about preparing us for that day.  For last year's Arts Day on the Hill we had a group of advocates, one from each State, and it being, you know, a different kind of world we brought a bunch of people to Canberra, we did two days of intensive training instead of week to week like this, and then we did back to back meetings with MPs.  This time we've been doing our training like this as we've been going.  And we would love to see who ‑ which among you and among our members would be interested in being an advocate or a media spokesperson for Arts Day on the Hill.  All that involves is on the day do you want to be someone who in your region or where you are is going to be, you know, kind of pushing and facilitating some great arts advocacy which could just be online through social media, are you someone who wants to speak specifically to the media when we organise interviews and so on, on the day.  We've got a survey which we're going to put out soon so that we can ‑ if you're interested you can apply, whether you would be like to be a media spokesperson or an advocate, tell us a bit about yourself.  Then as we lead into Arts Day on the Hill we're going to be looking in more specific ways about how to make best use of one day of arts advocacy for Australia.  Now, Arts Day on the Hill is ‑ it's something that NAVA has led but in our first iteration of it last year it was a collaboration with organisations across all art forms.  The idea is that this builds into something that has big impact.  So while ‑ to be, you know, our spokespeople you would need to be a NAVA member.  To be an advocate in general, you know, outside of that, you don't need ‑ you know, you don't need to be a member or visual artist in that broad sense of whatever visual arts means these days in that broader aspect.  But to support ‑ to be part of Arts Day on the Hill being a NAVA member is, of course, extremely important so that we're developing key messages and things together.  

So there is a survey which Leya has made which she will include in just a moment in the chat, and you've got a good few weeks to fill that out if you're interested in being an Arts Day on the Hill advocate or media spokesperson.  There it is right there.  Thanks, Leya.  It's just a Survey Monkey.  It's not very onerous, just some good basic questions about you.  And we're going to continue, of course, to build up our skills over the next few weeks.  So we've just had the end of our third week talking about the media.  And as we've done every time, each of our month‑long chapters ends with a Q&A with a politician where we reflect on the last few weeks' discussion and focus it back to a political focus, you know, bring it back to that focus.  Our three politicians have been the three co‑chairs of the Parliamentary friendship group for contemporary arts and culture.  So next week we're going to be joined by Adam Bandt, who is the co‑chair, he is a former Greens spokesperson for the arts.  Senator Sarah Hanson‑Young is the greens spokesperson.  So we're going to be speaking to Adam in a broader sense.  Again, as I often say, the Arts Minister or Shadow Minister or a party spokesperson for the arts, they're already on side.  It's their colleagues that we need to engage with and bring them to the conversation.  So we're going to have a great Q&A with Adam Bandt next week.  And in the meantime, do, please, click on and fill out that survey application if you're keen to take a more active role on Arts Day on the Hill so that we can really achieve an incredible critical mass of advocacy for the arts.  

So thank you everyone for joining us tonight.  Once again, our hour and a half has flown by.  Thanks everyone for those great questions.  It's just such an important topic.  And one that I know we're going to be picking up on in a lot of ways, and then more critically as we go.  Again in the handbook there are activities that you can do to really extend this conversation.  And thanks everyone for your thanks.  See you again this time next week in discussion with Adam Bandt.  Have a great night, everyone.  

(End)