Leaving aside my thoughts on the issue of ABC reporters being plumbed for opinions I though Grant's exit was done humbly and with good grace and for that I congratulate him.

The issue of Murdoch press dog-whistling specifically on significant ABC jounos has been a feature for a long time. The Kerry O'Brians and Barry Cassidys of this world really didn't have to contend with what the new crop, including Stan Grant cop on a daily basis.

Murdoch would love to see the privatisation of the ABC, something supported by some of the pinheads on this forum, thus the vitriol. That ultimately is what drives much of this and gets the useful idiots hot under the collar.

Grant's exit was done humbly and with good grace and for that I congratulate him.
SteeleRedux,
Yes, he deserves a Grammy Ward for that act. You on the other hand should work on waking up to the feigned indignation opportunists !
If I can wake up to them so can you !

From the Guardian: "The complaints were in reference to a segment running from 5.15 to 6pm in which a panel discussed 'critical perspectives on the role of the Monarchy in modern Australia' as early guests were arriving at Westminster Abbey".

Program not relative to the event and time.

The Q & A program proposed that the Monarchy / Crown was responsible for the aboriginal disadvantage and their ongoing problems. Stan who is part aboriginal both Wiradjuri and Scottish ancestry, failed to see his own heritage and advantage due to colonization.

Dear Indyvidual,

What a churlish and graceless take.

He didn't remonstrate, and was calm and thoughtful in his response. There was not Piers style huff, fluff and walk off that you might be used to when you are watching your nightly Sky News crew.

Get your head out of the gutter press and the social media sewer and accept it for what it was, a classy step away from the crap your ilk have been slinging with so much gay abandon.

Dear Graham Young,

I'm not sure you are looking in the right places. I have Malcolm Roberts in my twitter feed for my sins and he has been pretty constant reposting tweets which refer to things like "we've Stan Grant whose not black enough for the media" etc.

There seems to be a carousel of RWNJ who circulate these things and many will stay up for quite a while on the twitter sites of people like Roberts before being deleted.

Hi Graham

I suspect much of the nastiest abuse is either sent directly to the ABC or gets taken down by Twitter and other platforms when it is reported – for example, a man has just been charged with threats of violence against Grant – so you may not see the worst of it. What is left is dog whistling and innuendo, such as the puerile “Tan Grant” tweets claiming he uses fake tan to look more aboriginal.

I’m a Republican and didn’t watch the coronation, but I think it was poor judgement for the ABC to air a panel discussion on the faults of the monarchy during the coronation coverage. It is certainly legitimate to raise these issues, but that was not the time or the place. However, the fault lies mainly with ABC management not Grant, and that they left him to cop most of the consequent flak was disgraceful.

I thought Stan Grant was the best Q&A host in years (though far from perfect). He is courteous and intelligent and seems genuinely interested in exploring different opinions and ideas, whereas his predecessors were often arrogant and either shut down or derided people they disagreed with.

The ABC needs to think carefully about how it treats reporting, analysis and commentary. There is room for all three on the national broadcaster, but the lines between them too often blur, and that compromises its independence and reputation, and at times puts it in breach of its obligations. For example, I cannot see how its coverage of the Voice issue complies with clauses 4.2 and 4.5 of its impartiality standards.

https://www.abc.net.au/edpols/impartiality/13645770