THERE are none so blind as those at the ABC.

Last week the billion-dollars-per-year national broadcaster ran an extraordinary news piece on the savage London killing of off-duty soldier Lee Rigby.

Readers will recall the words from one of Rigby's murderers, Mujahid Adeboloja, who obligingly hung around following the slaying to explain himself.

"We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. You people will never be safe," Islamic convert Adeboloja said, his blood-soaked hands providing dramatic emphasis. "There are many, many ayah throughout the Koran that we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye, a tooth for tooth."

Several hours after video of Adeboloja's declaration had begun to be broadcast around the world, the ABC's man in London told evening news viewers what he knew about the killing. It turned out to be less than was known to anybody who'd been paying even vague interest.

"What happened was clear," the correspondent said. "The motivation, less so."

Well, apart from Allah and all of those ayah in the Koran. Take them out of the frame, as the ABC naturally did, and Adeboloja's motivation does indeed become slightly unclear. Removing the central component of a news story will tend to do that.

Our other tax-funded broadcaster, SBS, out-evaded even the ABC's item, which at least managed to mention Islam in passing (apparently London's Muslim community fears backlash; exactly why, nobody at the ABC could tell you). In nearly seven minutes of non-news from the UK, SBS's multicultural media messengers managed to completely miss the Muslim aspect of last week's murder.

As Andrew Bolt noticed, SBS somehow failed to mention even once the words "Muslim", "Islam", "Allah" or "Koran". This exchange, between SBS host Hannah Sinclair and London-based Australian journalist Adam McIlrick, summed up the network's coverage:

Sinclair: "Is there any indication of the background of the suspects involved?'

McIlrick: "No indication as yet, Hannah."

That was 12 hours after Mujahid Adeboloja had given quite a few indications regarding his background. "They wanted to be seen. They wanted to be heard," McIlrick offered about the killers. "And you'd have to say that's exactly what's happened." Except on either the ABC or SBS.

Last Friday I joined 2UE's Jason Morrison to discuss this innovative approach to news gathering, whereby the news aspect is carefully subtracted and a shroud of mysterious complexity is drawn over clear and known events.

Telephone complaints began to arrive even while we were on air. Afterwards, a couple of ABC types emailed Morrison to explain how a proper news organisation handles these sorts of things.

"What you fail to understand (is) that the onus of proof for ABC News to run with aspects of a story are vastly different to what maybe your organisation or Tim Blare (sic) at the Terror would require to go with," the first complainant wrote. In other words, a killer's confession just isn't good enough. Apparently the ABC needs independent verification from someone who isn't holding a machete dripping with blood.

"Or perhaps you do understand this," the complainant continued, "and it doesn't suit your cause?" This is brilliant. The ABC censors information, and we're the ones running an agenda. But it gets better. Next, the ABC's defender asks this question: "Where is your primary and official source that these crimes were carried out in the name of Islam as you are happy to tell your listeners?"

Sources don't come much more primary than the guy who did it. You know, the South London lad with deep crimson arterial blood all over him, standing a few metres from the corpse of the man he's just killed and ranting about Allah.

But maybe that's not "official" enough for the ABC, which presumably is still waiting for word from the Central Authority of Islamic Responsibility (Decapitation Division).

"If we get it wrong it can be an international incident and inflame enormous social disharmony," the email continued. Considering that a body is lying in a London street having been hacked and slashed in a manner reminiscent of a pig's slaughter, the point of social disharmony may have already been reached. But I take the ABC's point. Inflaming things could get someone hurt.

"Please understand," the email ended, "that ABC news is not just another news service." Let's edit that, as the ABC edits certain footage from the UK: the ABC is not a news service. There. Fixed it for you. Another complainant also took up the social disharmony theme. "Mr Morrison," the ABC staffer wrote, "the ABC does not exist to inflame racial tensions like Tim Blair and you seem to enjoy."

How does that explain, then, the ABC's massive coverage of racist abuse directed at Sydney Swans star Adam Goodes last Friday night? If Mujahid Adeboloja had been a teenage girl at the MCG, you get the feeling the ABC would have heard him loud and clear.

This staffer also demanded further evidence.

"What proof do you have that these crimes were even carried out by a Muslim man or in the name of the religion?"

Again, I refer you to the fellow's exact words, which the ABC resolutely refuses to hear.

"ABC TV and radio have a commitment to all Australians not just a narrow portion that you may target," the email signed off.

"Perhaps it would be beneficial if you understood the ABC editorial charter." I've just re-read the ABC's charter. Still can't find the section about compulsory spinelessness.

Possibly it's been edited.

Originally published as Spineless ABC's self-censorship