IN BRIEF
- Representatives from the ABC and SBS fronted the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion today.
- Both public broadcasters were criticised by Australia's antisemitism envoy earlier in the day.
The ABC and SBS have defended their reporting on conflict in the Middle East at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.
Earlier on Thursday, antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal told the commission that there was a strongly held perception among the Jewish community that the ABC was presenting biased and inaccurate reporting about the Hamas-Israel war.
"I'm not in any way suggesting that they shouldn't cover the matters that they consider important, but there are also lots of important issues around the world," the special envoy to combat antisemitism told the inquiry.
"There are major famines, there are wars that we don't hear about at all in Africa."
ABC editorial director Gavin Fang disagreed with the assessment, arguing the ABC aimed to present news accurately and impartially and platform a range of voices.
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
"We seek to, where relevant, hear from affected parties on a variety of sides of the conflict," he told the inquiry.
"That means hearing from both Palestinians and from Israelis ... hearing from government sources and from non-government."
Segal was also critical of figures SBS cites in its Gaza coverage.
Broadcasters push back on independent committee call
Segal said a separate oversight committee should be established to ensure the broadcaster followed its rules, arguing the ombudsman that each organisation has is not sufficiently independent.
"They can mark their own homework," she said.
"They are, with respect, judge, counsel and jury. They are all of it."
Fang said another oversight body was not needed and it wasn't clear how it would interact with the ombudsman.
SBS's Ombudsman Amy Stockwell, who was the final representative to speak at Thursday's hearings, said she was confident the current system is working.
"SBS has had an ombudsman for 21 years, so it's been designed and tested and refined over that period," she said.
"I think this model of co-regulation where there is an internal media ombudsman who is separate from the content divisions, but also still part of that ecosystem so that the audience has a very strong voice within the organisation."
Both the ABC and SBS can refer matters externally to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which is expected to appear before the inquiry next week.
Questions over Gaza Health Ministry figures, IHRA
Segal also took aim at SBS's use of death statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry, claiming the figures were "grossly inaccurate" and failed to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.
While some news outlets refer to the health ministry as being "Hamas-run", SBS news and current affairs director Mandi Wicks said she was confident SBS's overall coverage provides adequate context.
"Our position is we refer to the Gaza Health Ministry when we're quoting statistics, and we refer to the Israeli government statistics as well," she said.
"If it's to do with ensuring Australians have enough context to understand that Hamas is running the Gaza Strip, we do frequently refer to the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, the Hamas-run government of Gaza, and we frequently refer to the fact that Hamas is recognised as a terrorist organisation by many countries around the world, including Australia."
The broadcasters were also questioned over why they haven't adopted the contested International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
Wicks told the commission that "we neither accept or reject" the definition but said it was provided to staff, alongside other material, as a point of reference.
"We acknowledge that it is an important definition recognised by many," she said, adding that SBS as an organisation did not make determinations of antisemitism but reported when events were "determined to be such by police, the legal system, the community itself".
"We have covered extensively reporting on antisemitic attacks and the abhorrent impacts that has had on the community here and globally," she added.
Fang said the IHRA definition is contested.
"It is important for us to maintain not just our independence but the perception of independence.
"And it’s my view and has been my advice that adopting a definition that is contested would not help us with both the perception of independence and our independence more broadly, and that our current framework, as it relates to our editorial policies, is effective in doing that."
ABC, SBS issue statements ahead of hearings
Ahead of today's hearings, both public broadcasters said they have delivered accurate and comprehensive coverage of antisemitism and Jewish Australian perspectives.
A public statement from the SBS released today said in part the broadcaster "unequivocally condemns antisemitism and affirms the right of Jewish Australians to live with safety, dignity and a true sense of belonging".
"Our submission to the Royal Commission highlights the vital role trusted, independent public service media plays in strengthening social cohesion."
The statement said SBS has invested significantly "in reporting and programming that helps Australians better understand antisemitism and its impacts, with content available in more than 60 languages".
"Across all our platforms and services, we represent Jewish Australian stories and perspectives in a way that is respectful, accurate and inclusive."
A public statement released by the ABC today said in part that the broadcaster "rejects claims that its journalism has contributed to antisemitism or social division" and its reporting "has been evidence-based, fair, impartial and consistent with its Charter obligations".
"A healthy democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions. The ABC acknowledges that some content can be challenging, but it does not gratuitously harm or offend, nor does it allow, condone or encourage prejudice."
Hearings in previous days have focused on the role of social media in spreading online hate, with Meta, TikTok and YouTube all defending their content moderation procedures.
- With additional reporting by the Australian Associated Press.
For the latest from SBS News, download our app and subscribe to our newsletter.
