Antisemitism envoy calls for independent oversight of public broadcasters
The antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, advocated for the establishment of a new "oversight" committee to review the coverage of the ABC and SBS regarding the Middle East conflict during testimony at the royal commission on Thursday morning.
Currently, both the ABC and SBS have independent ombudsmen responsible for handling complaints. Segal proposed that an external committee should have oversight, citing a "common and pervasive perception" within the Jewish community that the public broadcasters' reporting on the Middle East war lacked balance. She noted concerns about an overemphasis on Gaza compared to other conflicts and that the coverage disproportionately amplified anti-Israel perspectives.
"It’s the perception of the Jewish community feeling constantly that they are being faced with reporting about the Middle East, about Gaza and about Israel in a way that paints Israel constantly in a negative light," Segal said.
Segal clarified that anti-Israel perspectives refer to those critical of Israel’s actions.
ABC editorial director responds to claims of bias
Gavin Fang, the ABC editorial director, contested the assertion that the coverage was disproportionate. He informed the inquiry that the national broadcaster had addressed the rise in antisemitism and maintained a range of editorial policies outlining principles and higher standards expected of public media.
"The policies state the ABC must meet standards around not unduly favouring one perspective over another and around impartiality, accuracy and fairness," he said.
Fang emphasized that the ABC consistently considers audience feedback and would similarly consider Segal’s suggestions. However, regarding the proposal for an additional oversight body, he noted that the independent ombudsman already reports to the board.
Segal highlights UK’s Ofcom as a model
Segal described how an independent regulator could provide broadcasters with a "tick" or guidance on coverage. She spoke positively about the role of the UK’s media watchdog, Ofcom.
"[Ofcom] has powers to open their own investigations. They can look at a story and direct the BBC to take it down, to look at things differently. They can fine the BBC," she said.
She further noted that as of this month, Ofcom has the responsibility to "consider and give an opinion on whether the BBC has observed the relevant editorial guidelines in its online material," although it currently lacks enforcement powers for that content.
Segal remarked that Jewish Australians expressed greater frustration with the existing media watchdog, the Australian Media and Communications Authority (Acma), than with the ABC itself.
ABC defends existing oversight mechanisms
Fang maintained that the ombudsman, the board, and Acma function effectively.
"I’m not sure how another oversight body might function in addition to that existing oversight body, which already has the power to review and to examine the ABC’s content," he said.
The ABC issued a statement earlier in the week acknowledging that Middle East coverage generates more complaints than any other topic. However, no complaints of bias in ABC News had been upheld by the ombudsman or investigated by Acma.
"In the six months July-December 2025, 51% of complaints claimed the ABC’s Israel-Gaza coverage was broadly pro-Palestinian and 47% claimed it was broadly pro-Israel," the statement said.
"This indicates that perceptions of bias are arising from strongly held views across the community rather than systematic editorial favouritism."
There have been five breaches of editorial standards found by the ombudsman.
Concerns over committee composition and trust
Commissioner Virginia Bell questioned Segal about how a committee including members with a particular "bandwagon" might affect public trust in the ABC’s independence. Segal responded that the committee could be appointed without a Jewish representative, provided its members understood antisemitism.
Context of the royal commission and antisemitism definition
The royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion was established following the tragic attack where 15 people were killed at a Hanukah event.
A key theme of the hearings has been defining antisemitism and distinguishing it from criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza, a distinction underscored by a recent UN commission of inquiry—a finding Israel has categorically rejected.
This segment of hearings has focused on social media, the rapid circulation of antisemitic material on platforms, challenges in detection and prevention, and the minimal efforts by some platforms to address the issue.
Both the ABC and SBS have submitted documents to the inquiry. They have adopted the contested International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which the royal commission is using. Critics argue this definition conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, potentially chilling discussions about the Middle East and being "problematic."
Counsel assisting Richard Lancaster SC noted earlier in the inquiry that some submissions were "highly critical" of the broadcasters’ Middle East coverage.
"There are complaints that the ABC and the SBS have produced coverage that is inaccurate or unbalanced, both in their selection of stories and focus and in the reportage that they produce," he said.
Examples of problematic coverage cited by Segal
Segal referenced an ABC report that erroneously stated "14,000 babies that will die in the next 48 hours" in Gaza unless aid could reach them. The report was based on a UN spokesperson’s comments to the BBC and should have indicated that 14,000 babies might die in the next year.
The BBC had issued a correction before the ABC broadcasted the story, and the ABC subsequently corrected its own reporting.
"It took too long to correct, that the correction had less prominence than the original story, and that it should have been checked before being aired," Segal said.
"It was a bad mistake," Fang acknowledged.
Fang described the ABC’s transparent corrections and clarifications policy, noting their approach is to correct errors at the earliest opportunity.
"Sometimes we don’t achieve that, because we’re attempting to ensure we fully understand what the issue might have been," he said, adding that they also try to ensure the same audience that heard the mistake also hears the correction.
He emphasized the ABC’s careful balance between public interest and stories that could cause harm.
"Part of the role of a public media organisation is also to do challenging stories, to do brave journalism in the attempt to allow the community to be informed and make up their own mind about issues," he said.
Fang acknowledged that "unfairly negative coverage" could fuel antisemitism by conflating individuals with the state of Israel, and reiterated the ABC’s role to provide accurate and impartial information.
Additional concerns about SBS coverage
Segal also criticized SBS for using Gaza’s health ministry as an official source of statistics, which she described as "grossly inflated."
Israel has accepted the ministry’s estimates that the death toll exceeds 70,000.
She noted that there is more focus on Israel’s behavior than that of Hamas, and that reporting on Israel’s actions in Gaza has contributed to antisemitism in Australia.
"If Israel has misconducted itself, then accurate reporting, it is what it is. But if the reporting is not accurate, then I think the broadcaster has some responsibility and that’s what I’m dealing with."
Segal suggested that broadcasters could also highlight positive stories about other aspects of Israel’s activities.
