ABC Alumni’s Jonathan Holmes raised the alarm about the threats to the ABC’s independence implicit in the Report by Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal AO, when it came out last July. We raised the same points, in more detail, in our submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion soon after it was set up in the wake of the Bondi massacre. Last week, Jillian Segal gave evidence to the Royal Commission about the strong perception of many in the Australian Jewish community that the public broadcasters’ coverage of recent conflict in the Middle East is biased against Israel, and insensitive to the risk that such reporting will exacerbate antisemitism.
Her two hours of evidence, and the “solutions” she is proposing, confirmed the Alumni’s worst fears about the growing threat to the ABC’s independence and to the trust that the wider public has in its news output. One of the ABC’s most experienced foreign correspondents, and a founding member of ABC Alumni, is Greg Wilesmith. This is his reaction to Ms Segal’s testimony to the Royal Commission.
Antisemitism, The Special Envoy, and The ABC
The ABC’s reporting and analysis since the Hamas attack on Israelis on 7th October, 2023 has in my view been professional and impartial and continues a tradition spanning 40 years of appointing ABC staff reporters, camera people and others to the Middle East.
My perspective comes from a 50-year career in journalism, four of the most demanding years as an ABC Middle East correspondent during which I often reported from Gaza and the West Bank; and later as a news manager and executive producer of Foreign Correspondent. Gaza was an appalling horror show decades ago.
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 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 we’ve had only a very limited view of the suffering there.
Jillian Segal, the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, argued at the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion that the ABC and SBS devote too much time and give too much prominence to reporting and commentary on the Gaza war. She argues that because some news, current affairs and other programs and online content include so much material about the consequence of Israel’s actions, there’s a “conflation” such that Australian Jews face increased antisemitism.
The first proposition about coverage seems to me to be 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 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 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 I wonder 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? Note that the ABC’s Ombudsman gave evidence to the Royal Commission that almost 50% of the complaints to the 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 Hamas hostages, 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 – I agree with her. The ABC closed down bureaux in Africa and in Russia years ago as a 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, apart from the United Nations Human Rights Council claim of “genocide” in Gaza, last year the Australian government 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.
Let’s turn to Ms Segal’s proposed corrective: the establishment of a committee outside the ABC which would assess complaints about coverage. There is already such a body, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (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 that commercial media organisations, which have more listeners, viewers and readers in total than the ABC and SBS, would not have similar oversight committees.
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, or would it accept submissions from complainants from a multitude of organisations about every subject under the sun? Ms Segal has sent a written submission to the Royal Commission which has yet to be published. It seems to me it would be in everyone’s interests to see the fine detail as soon as possible.
As a boy I attended, along with many Jewish friends, the Bondi Beach Primary School, which is just across the road from the massacre site where 15 people were murdered and 40 wounded last December. I understand that the Bondi slaughter changed everything and that 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 produce 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 which imperils the public broadcasters’ editorial independence is not the way to do it.
- Greg Wilesmith