ABC bias? Not so simple

Andrew Wirth, Australia, Jan 14, 2025

I note Richard Bean’s analysis of interviews on ABC Radio National’s Breakfast program suggesting pro-Israel bias in the ABC.

I wish to share a letter I wrote to the ABC in November 2023, seeking clarification about a two-part discussion on “Big Ideas” entitled “Newsroom ethics and the Israel-Gaza war” which,   I suggested,  could plausibly be interpreted as having a panel skewed against the Israeli perspective.

This is obviously not intended to be a systematic rebuttal of Bean’s piece. It is simply one counter-example intended to complicate the picture presented in Bean’s study, and to indicate that ABC coverage of the conflict and how it is reported is not routinely and uniformly pro-Israel. (Note –  I am not suggesting that any of the views expressed by any of the panelists on Big Ideas are invalid or illegitimate, just that such views are sometimes foregrounded by the ABC).

 

Letter to the ABC Ombusman, dated 26-11-23

In a recent “Big Ideas” panel discussion (and here), “Newsroom ethics and the Israel-Gaza war”, the ABC addressed the challenges inherent in reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict, particularly since 7th October with divergent, passionately held views expressed in the media, at university campuses and schools and on Australian streets.

The panel, moderated by Martin Newman, had six participants. Two participants, Monica Attard and Karen Percy, highlighted key journalistic principles and the practical challenges encountered in reporting Israel-Palestine. They both appeared to take a relatively neutral stance on the issue at hand. (Regarding this neutrality, it is noted that the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, of which Karen Percy is Media President, signed an open letter presenting a very one sided view of the conflict and its reporting. Percy did not sign in her own name.)

There were four other speakers.

Amy McQuire is an indigenous Australian woman who identifies a connectedness between Australian Indigenous and Palestinian struggles and has expressed solidarity with Palestinians. Rawan Damen is a member of Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism and director of the documentary Al Nakba. Zahera Harb is a London journalist who worked for many years in Lebanon and is also a member of Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism. All three are clearly highly accomplished and articulate but more or less strongly expressed concerns held by the pro-Palestinian segments of the community. If Antony Lowenstein, a Jewish Australian writer/journalist was chosen to provide balance to the panel, he was clearly a poor pick. Lowenstein, author of “My Israel Question”, essentially made his name as a Jewish critic of Israel.

Thus four of the six panelists (or potentially five, given the Percy’s position at the MEAA) appeared to have strong commitments to the “Palestinian side” of this issue. There was no one on the panel to provide a counter view (from an Israeli perpsective).

Moderator Martin Newman didn’t help achieve balance with a Dorothy Dixer to Rawan Damen (asking about reticence to use the word genocide for Israel’s actions), by supporting Anthony Lowenstein’s response to a comment from Monica Attard and by inviting an anecdote from a journalist who described being fired for expressing his views critical of reporting.

While the ABC is to be congratulated for convening a panel on this challenging area of reporting, it is concerning and indeed ironic, that the composition of the panel seemed to reproduce the very problem it was set up to examine. It is astounding that the ABC failed to take care in seeking genuine balance in the preparation of this important journalistic discussion.

 Can the ABC provide further background on this? Was there any effort made to seek balance on this panel? If not, how can the ABC justify such a skewed panel selection?

 

The Ombudsman’s reply is copied below in full.

 

I’ll highlight just three points from the ABC Ombudsman’s reply:

The reply doesn’t really address the core concern raised, but simply states that “panel composition is not determinative of compliance with the ABC’s impartiality standards”.

It notes the report was “not a debate about whether Israel should or should not have invaded Gaza” which is irrelevant as this was not the concern raised in my letter.

It notes that one of the issues touched upon was “coverage privileging certain perspectives”, yet fails to adequately respond to the concern that it was precisely this issue of privileging that was reproduced in the panel.

 

The Ombudsman’s reply in full:

Ombudsman Investigation Report— 15 December 2023

Big Ideas – ‘Newsroom ethics and the Israel-Gaza war’— 23 November 2023

Summary

The Ombudsman’s Office received five content complaints about a panel discussion broadcast as part of RN’s Big Ideas program. The complaints were similarly worded and argued that the panel composition was skewed towards a Palestinian position on the Israel-Gaza conflict, and as a result the program lacked impartiality.

Analysis

The Ombudsman has noted in previous investigation reports that panel composition is not determinative of compliance with the ABC’s impartiality standards. Moreover, in this case, the panel was not selected by ABC staff, but by organisers of the panel discussion, the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS).

The complaints primarily focussed on the background of panellists, except broadly noting that predominantly pro-Palestinian positions were expressed during the discussion. Two complainants noted:

Moderator Martin Newman didn’t help achieve balance with a Dorothy Dixer to Rawan Damen (asking about reticence to use the word “genocide” for Israel’s actions), by supporting Antony Loewenstein’s response to a comment from Monica Attard and by inviting an anecdote from a journalist who described being fired for expressing his views critical of reporting.

The program submitted:

The focus of the panel was specifically the challenges journalists and newsroom staff face in reporting on the Gaza conflict. It was not a debate about whether Israel should or should not have invaded Gaza.

Host Natasha Mitchell’s introduction Listed some of the media-related challenges which would be discussed including the spread of misinformation and conflicting narratives.

The panel’s aim was to air these issues openly and respectfully. Speakers were given allotted time to make their case and there was some general discussion about the points raised.

In the raw transcript UTS organisers note that ‘they reached out to some Jewish journalists’

While there wasn’t much time given for speakers to address each other’s points, there were certainly questions about some of the more sweeping statements made, including the notion that the media has silenced Palestinian voices in favour of Israeli voices.

We accept the program’s submission that the debate was focussed on the challenges faced by journalists covering the Israel-Gaza conflict, rather than the conflict itself. It was appropriately introduced as such by the program’s presenter.

ABC OMBUDSMAN

Within this editorial focus, critical perspectives were expressed on a variety of issues, including the difficulty of verifying claims, mis- and disinformation, contested terms, coverage privileging certain perspectives and sources, pressure brought to bear on journalists by lobby groups, self-censorship and whether journalists should be able to include their own perspectives and lived experience in the way they cover the conflict. Some perspectives expressed by panellists were explicitly challenged, with Monica Attard contradicting an alleged ‘silencing’ of Palestinian voices in mainstream media coverage and lack of attributing ‘violence’ to Israel. Ms Attard also queried a suggestion of journalists being ‘activists, and alleged lack of acknowledgment of a freelance Palestinian journalist filing for the ABC being killed in Gaza.

We note that the moderator allowed panellists to comprehensively express their views and respond to each other, and invited audience members to ask questions or contribute further relevant perspectives, without providing commentary on the issues himself.

Ombudsman’s Finding

The program did not breach the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality.

Fiona Cameron

ABC Ombudsman

 

 

Andrew Wirth is a member of the Melbourne Jewish community. He is unaffiliated with any communal political organisations.

Share and Enjoy !

Return to letters