But now to the fierce row over claims of political interference and censorship at the ABC, following the publication of this controversial article by the ABC's chief economics correspondent Emma Alberici:

Mega profits with no tax - corporate tax avoidance rife in Australia — ABC News, 14 February, 2018

Last Wednesday Emma Alberici published two stories attacking the government's proposal to lower the corporate tax rate from 30 to 25 per cent. One was this news story:

New analysis by the ABC reveals ... about one in five of the country's biggest companies have paid no tax for at least the past three years. — ABC News, 14 February, 2018

And the other was this analysis piece, well argued but one-sided, which challenged the government's claim that cutting corporate tax rates will make the average worker better off:

There is no compelling evidence that giving the country's biggest companies a tax cut sees that money passed on to workers in the form of higher wages. — ABC News, 14 February, 2018

Company tax cuts will be a hot political issue at the next election because Labor opposes them.

And with Bill Shorten retweeting Alberici's articles, Malcolm Turnbull was quick to attack both her and the ALP:

MALCOLM TURNBULL: We saw that they were busily retweeting the article - one of the most confused and poorly researched articles I've seen on this topic on the ABC's website. — ABC TV, Question Time, 14 February, 2018

And before long the backlash was in full swing, with Qantas CEO Alan Joyce and the Business Council of Australia's Jennifer Westacott calling the stories misleading.

And ferocious formal complaints coming from the PM and the Treasurer, claiming her work was riddled with inaccuracies. And sending ABC News into crisis meetings.

You can still see Alberici's news story online, but it has now been drastically rewritten, and we believe it needed to be - to clear up the confusion between income and profit, to moderate the tone, and to get rid of gratuitous swipes like this depiction of Goldman Sachs as:

... the great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money ... — ABC News, 14 February, 2018

But Alberici's analysis article, which attacked the government's proposed corporate tax cuts on the basis that they would not boost wages, has been removed entirely on the grounds that it, quote:

...did not accord with our editorial standards for analysis ... — ABC statement, 16 February, 2018

And as a result the ABC has been bombarded with rage on social media and subjected to a bunch of headlines which damage both its and Alberici's reputation.

And as The Australian reported, one of the noisiest complainants was Communications Minister Mitch Fifield, who thundered to the ABC's Managing Director:

This coverage contains multiple factual errors and misrepresentations in breach of the ABC's editorial standards. It is neither fair, balanced, accurate nor impartial. It fails to present a balance of views on the corporate tax policy. — The Australian, 16 February, 2018

So, is the minister right? Economist Saul Eslake - who is quoted in Alberici's articles - told Media Watch:

I don't think there were any factual errors ... — Statement to Media Watch, 18 February, 2018

And other commentators back that up. And Emma Alberici also insists that is so, disputing the ABC's claim today that there were "inaccuracies". She also adds in her defence:

I set about testing the claim that tax cuts for big companies are necessarily linked to wages growth. As the ABC's chief economics correspondent, with 25 years' experience in the field of business and finance reporting, I would be expected to do that. — Emma Alberici, Chief economics correspondent, ABC News, 18 February, 2018

But facts were not the only issue with her news story, and it was certainly not why her analysis article was removed.

The problem there according to the ABC - and we have to agree - was it overstepped the ABC's rigid guidelines on analysis and opinion, which remarkably ban reporters from expressing opinions, and which state:

Even specialists should stop short of prescriptive conclusions or overt advocacy of one position over another. — ABC Editorial Policies

And which add that:

All of this content should be impartial ... — ABC Editorial Policies

All the same, a couple of key questions arise.

And the most important is: could the problem have been fixed without taking Alberici's analysis down and hanging her out to dry?

We think the answer is absolutely yes, by updating the piece to balance it with the government's point of view.

Second is: are the ABC's guidelines on analysis and opinion too restrictive? Again, we think the answer is yes. One ABC reporter described them as a "straightjacket".

And the third question is: if Alberici's analysis was so gravely in breach of ABC standards, and her news story included inaccuracies, why did the ABC's editorial processes not pick that up?

And why did this strap line about "corporate tax avoidance" appear on Emma's morning TV interviews?

The ABC told us in a statement:

ABC News acknowledges its subediting and publishing process in this case did not meet our standards. We have already implemented changes to strengthen these processes. — ABC statement to Media Watch, 18 February, 2018

But the further question that lies behind this is: has the ABC caved in to political pressure from an angry government?

Certainly that's what some people are saying, including former ABC reporter Quentin Dempster who tweeted:

... Its total removal from the website seems censorious, leading to speculation ABC has been got at ... — Twitter, Quentin Dempster, 16 February, 2018

The ABC denies that and says that concerns about Alberici's stories were raised inside the ABC before any public criticism.

And while we can't show you the correspondence, we have seen an email from News Director Gaven Morris raising concerns less than two hours after the story was published.

However, we also note it wasn't until hours after the PM and Treasurer complained that the stories were altered or removed.

But whether the ABC bowed to pressure or not, we think there are lessons to be learnt.

First is that the system of editorial quality control on a major story has failed yet again.

Second is if the ABC wants analysis from its leading news journalists - and we think the public does want to hear their verdict on policy - it needs to relax the guidelines to give reporters a little more room to move.

Because, in the current system, to avoid straying into opinion is almost mission impossible.