In December 2024, I presented an analysis of more than 450 interviews concerning Palestine and Israel on ABC Radio National Breakfast, since 7 October 2023. During this period, the host was Patricia Karvelas. Her last show was on Friday 13 December.

I found that, relative to Palestinian guests, over 14 months, Israeli guests were featured more than twice as often.

Since Sally Sara took over on 16 December, there have been 93 interviews on the same subject. Israeli guests featured in 33 interviews while Palestinian guests featured in 12. Israeli guests have featured even more than before. Although the host pushes back on some of the more egregious claims made, the imbalances have persisted.

Additionally, another concerning aspect is the repeated invitation of guests, across the ABC, from the Washington DC-based Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD). This think-tank functions effectively as an Israeli Government front group, lobbying for an American attack on Iran. None of this was disclosed to the audience, nor was the fact that FDD does not reveal its funders. The simplest way to deal with this issue, ABC-wide, is to veto all guests from entities that do not disclose their funders.

Since the first analysis, ABC editorial director Gavin Fang stated in Senate Estimates: “If you are reporting on allegations of genocide, you need to provide the other perspective on that.”

The host reaction when a guest mentions an Israeli “genocide” is usually to interrupt and mention that Israel contests this. This has happened four of seven times (Ayed Abu Aqtaish, Mustafa Barghouti twice, Francesca Albanese, Yasemin Acar; and omitted for Mustafa Barghouti and Michal Fakhri). But this does not occur when a guest alleges similar conduct by Hamas (Michal Cotler-Wunsh, Jonathan Conricus, Luis Moreno Ocampo). Thus the rule specified by Fang is not followed consistently in any sense.

The boilerplate line applied for Israel met with a brilliant response from Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur for Palestinian human rights (6 February 2025):

Would you say the same thing of the Armenian genocide because there was not an ICJ determination? Would you say the same thing of the Jewish genocide because there was not a determination? Would you say the same thing of the Aboriginal genocide in Australia?

There has never been such a consensus of human rights organisations and genocide scholars and others that this is genocide. However, keep on telling what you think, but this is a genocide. And even if it was not that, in January last year, the ICJ [International Court of Justice] recognised the plausible risk of genocide. This should have been enough to trigger the responsibility of countries to intervene. What the international community, including Australia, have done is nothing. This is what we need to talk about.

The continuation of the policy of interrupting guests who mention genocide is a clear breach of the ABC’s policy on objectivity and impartiality. This policy states that impartiality requires “a balance that follows the weight of evidence”.

In the case of Gaza, Dr Nimer Sultany of the University of London has stated: “There is an increasing consensus that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza because the evidence is overwhelming.”

Groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN Special Committee to investigate Israeli practices, and numerous independent scholars have concluded Israel’s conduct is genocidal. The ICJ case brought against Israel by South Africa is supported by 21 other countries plus the African Union (55 states), Arab League (22 states), Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (57 states), and the Non-Aligned Movement (120 states).

In contrast, at this time, only the state of Israel and closely linked entities such as FDD, the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre contest this. Only Germany (January 2024) announced an intent to intervene on behalf of Israel at the ICJ, but has not filed any declaration as of May 2025.

Following the weight of the evidence in this case requires the ABC to revise its policy of having hosts constantly interrupt guests who state that Israel’s conduct is genocidal.

The ABC, in the name of “balance”, provides active cover for Israel’s ongoing genocide. In contrast, the fact that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has an active arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court was mentioned by the host only twice in dozens of interviews. This was before an interview with Luis Moreno Ocampo, former ICC prosecutor, together with a denial, and after an interview with Yasemin Acar where she mentioned the word “genocide”.

This Israel-centred and Israel-focused reporting is also present in the online articles of the ABC. For instance, John Lyons wrote a 2100-word article about the prospects of the two-state solution in January. He mentioned 14 different people, none of whom were Palestinian. This was a breach of another ABC policy: “present a diversity of perspectives within a reasonable timeframe … so that no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented”.

Whether it is out of fear of being smeared as “antisemitic”, or fear of diverging too far from a “safe” viewpoint endorsed by the Australian or US governments — whatever the reason — the ABC’s “false balance” on the subject of Palestine must end. Palestinians must be given an uninterrupted say, and the ABC must end its interference on behalf of a foreign entity. This is a basic requirement of its supposed dedication to impartial reporting.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.