Greg Wilesmith

Claims of ABC bias against Israel in its reporting of current Middle East conflicts defy the truth and the professional and impartial tradition of ABC staff reporters.

The recent appearance of Special Envoy Jillian Segal AO at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion has sparked another spate of headlines and social media claiming the ABC and SBS are biased in their coverage of Israel and Palestine and that the public broadcasters are perceived by many in Australia’s Jewish community of fostering antisemitism in Australia.

Is this a fair assessment of ABC and SBS reporting and analysis since the Hamas attack on Israelis on October 7 2023?

Now living in tents, desperate for adequate food and water and medical attention because their homes and hospitals have been destroyed by the Israeli military, Palestinians are enduring an endless siege. Israel bans international reporters from Gaza except for occasional and quick military-escorted trips. The ABC and all serious news organisations have sought to provide some coverage of daily life and death in Gaza but this allows only a very limited view of the suffering there.

Jillian Segal AO, the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, argued at the Royal Commission that the ABC and SBS devote too much time and give too much prominence to reporting and commentary on the Gaza war. Moreover, that because some news, current affairs and other programs and online content include criticism of Israel’s actions, there is a “conflation” such that Australian Jews face increased antisemitism.

The first proposition about coverage seems absurd and demonstrates that Ms Segal, along with many Australian politicians, ignores the statutory independence of Australia’s public broadcasters. The ABC’s responsibility and that of SBS is to report on communities, the nation and the world to 28 million Australians and to be mindful of Australia’s multicultural society. Neither the ABC nor SBS should limit or censor reporting because it might be regarded as embarrassing or offensive to a relatively small community, however powerful and influential it might be.

How could the ABC remain the most trusted news and current affairs service in the country if it acted against the professional judgement of journalists and managers and instead limited reporting of at least 70,000 dead Gazans, settler violence on the West Bank, the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, the creation of a “security zone” inside Syria and, not least, Israel’s role in promoting a war in Iran and the Gulf, which has had a catastrophic impact on world trade?

How would Australians of Lebanese, Egyptian, Turkish, Iraqi, Syrian and Palestinian heritage, plus Muslim migrants from all parts of the world respect the ABC and SBS were they to limit Middle East coverage? How would the great bulk of the ABC and SBS audience regard such a decision? It’s notable that the ABC’s Ombudsman gave evidence to the Royal Commission that almost 50 per cent of the complaints to the national broadcaster have alleged that it is pro-Israeli, not pro-Palestinian.

Ms Segal proposes that the ABC’s small bureau in Jerusalem should devote time and energy to finding “positive” stories that reflect well on Israel. She wasn’t challenged on this notion at the Royal Commission but fair-minded listeners or viewers of ABC broadcasts or readers of ABC Online would remember much “positive” reporting – on the Israeli hostages taken by Hamas, their long-suffering families, those massive “people power” demonstrations in Tel Aviv urging the government to negotiate the release of hostages. And, more recently, reporting on Israeli communities in the line of fire from Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Ms Segal asserts that the ABC and SBS cover the Israeli/Palestinian conflict disproportionately and should focus on other wars, famine and strife in Africa and so forth. On the latter point – reporting other conflicts – few associated with the public broadcaster would disagree with her. The ABC closed down bureaux in Africa and in Russia years ago as a news cost-saving measure, to its continuing great detriment, particularly in reporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

However, on the proportionality question, let’s remember that – as well as the United Nations Human Rights Council claim of “genocide” in Gaza – the Australian government last year broke with tradition and officially recognised the state of Palestine, to the fury of Israel’s government. Australians need to know what is happening there and commercial media have largely ignored the issue.

On the question of accuracy, like all media organisations, the ABC is not immune to mistakes but, unlike commercial media, the ABC is required to publicly acknowledge errors and correct them as promptly as possible. Its failure to correct in a timely fashion an outlandish claim about 14,000 Palestinian babies potentially dying from malnutrition within 48 hours brought an admission by the ABC at the Royal Commission that it was a “bad mistake”. The ABC Ombudsman, who is entirely independent of the news service and reports to the ABC Board, examined thousands of complaints. She found just four news reports were inaccurate over the course of several years and upheld not one claim of bias.

Let’s turn to Ms Segal’s proposed corrective: the establishment of a committee outside the ABC that would assess complaints about coverage. There is already such a body, the Australian Communications and Media Association (ACMA), but Ms Segal says the Jewish community has great frustration with it. Why would that be? Evidence to the Royal Commission shows that ACMA investigations of complaints about the ABC have not found the inaccuracies, bias and lack of balance claimed by some Jewish organisations. Note, too, that commercial media organisations, which have more listeners, viewers and readers in total than the ABC and SBS, would not be required by Ms Segal to have similar oversight committees or transparency in the way that the public broadcasters would.

So how would such an external committee be constituted? Would Ms Segal be part of the selection committee? Would it solely assess complaints about the reporting of Israel/Palestine/Lebanon/ Iran, or would it accept submissions from complainants from a multitude of organisations about every subject under the sun? Ms Segal has put a written submission to the Royal Commission, which has yet to be published. It would be in everyone’s interests to see the fine detail as soon as possible.

The slaughter at Bondi where 15 people were murdered and 40 wounded last December changed everything, and members of the Jewish community feel much less safe than previously. Clearly, the scourge of antisemitism is real and has become much more pervasive since October 7, 2023.

The Royal Commission has to deliver recommendations to government about how to combat antisemitism and promote social cohesion. Limiting ABC and SBS reporting and analysis of the Middle East, censoring criticisms of Israel and setting up an oversight body that contradicts the ABC’s editorial independence is not the way to do it.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/07/no-case-for-muzzling-abc-and-sbs-reporting-on-israel/

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

SEE ALSO: Who Can Be Prosecuted for the Gaza Genocide?

The UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory has documented violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Gaza. Amit Baruah and Justice S. Muralidhar, Chair of the Commission, discuss the findings of the Commission’s reports, the impact of the war on Palestinian children, and the challenges of enforcing international law amid global political divisions.

Justice Muralidhar explains the mandate and investigative process of the Commission, which examines violations in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Israel. Drawing from the Commission’s findings, he discusses reports on children, genocide, gender-based violence, and the evidence gathered through forensic analysis, testimonies, and corroboration. The interview further explores the global response to the Gaza war, the limits of international mechanisms, and India’s evolving position on Palestine, including questions around arms supplies, diplomacy, and its role in upholding the international legal order.

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2026/07/who-can-be-prosecuted-for-the-gaza-genocide/