In the Media

An edited version of this article appeared in the Nov. 28, 2025 edition of the Australian Jewish News

A scandal involving the BBC’s news and current affairs coverage, including its reporting on the Hamas–Israel war, prompted similar analysis of the ABC. The ABC’s response was effectively, “Biased? Us?”

Every organisation has a political culture. But is there merit in the accusation of “systemic” or “institutional” ABC bias? For those of us who watch, listen to and read ABC content daily, there is little doubt the answer is a resounding “yes”.

The ABC’s framework for reporting the Israeli–Palestinian issue is to portray the former as the aggressor and the latter as perpetual victims with no agency. This is not mere conjecture but an admission by the ABC itself.

In 2019, AIJAC lodged a formal complaint against two ABC reports dealing with the rollout of COVID vaccines in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. It was clear that, unlike its media peers, the broadcaster felt it was not duty-bound to include critical context.

In its defence, the ABC admitted:

“ABC News observes that any requirement to suggest some equivalence between Israel’s responsibilities and those of the Palestinian Authority would in fact be misleading and would ignore the huge imbalances in power, budget and capacity between the antagonists. Recognising Israel’s overwhelming advantages and discussing its responsibilities as the occupying power is the appropriate emphasis for these news stories about management of a worldwide pandemic. This approach is duly favoured by the most prominent international agencies and human rights groups, including the UN Human Rights Council.”

This self-justification was a smoking gun revealing the ABC’s partisan approach to journalism.

It also helps explain how stories and interviewees are selected, how reports are constructed and how interviews are conducted by the ABC.

The ABC, in its wisdom, is loath to report on internal political and social developments in the Palestinian self-rule areas of the West Bank and Gaza that do not involve Israel. Topping the list of issues the ABC ignores are the Palestinian Authority’s endemic corruption; the fact that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is now in the 20th year of what was originally a four-year term; and the rare reports from NGOs that criticise human-rights abuses committed by both the PA and Hamas.

In late September, the ABC took flak for its failure to report footage from Gaza of Hamas executing three Palestinian men accused of being Israeli collaborators.

This was of a piece with its decision in June and July 2021 to completely ignore widespread Palestinian protests against President Abbas’s administration on the West Bank. The rioting was triggered by the death in custody of a vocal critic of the Palestinian Authority, Nizar Banat. Mainstream media covering the developments included the Australian, SBS, the West Australian, Yahoo Australia, the Guardian Australia, the BBC and even Al Jazeera.

The activist streak at the ABC was blown wide open immediately after October 7 and the subsequent Hamas–Israel conflict.

In direct contravention of their professional responsibilities to be objective and even ABC social media policies, the personal social media accounts of staff – many of whom were directly reporting on breaking news in the conflict – revealed where their owner’s allegiances lay.

Social media accounts promoted “Free Palestine” and material that was inflammatory and factually wrong.

Dozens, if not hundreds, of staff also signed anti-Israel petitions that airbrushed out October 7 and Hamas’ genocidal nihilism.

In early 2024, a vocal group of ABC employees held stop-work meetings in order to pressure management to prioritise the Palestinian narrative. Their demands included being able to state as fact that Israel has carried out genocide in Gaza.

Among their gripes was a claim of self-censorship when reporting on Israel’s alleged crimes, supposedly out of fear of complaints and pressure from the Israel lobby.

Yet the reality is that an accusation made against Israel – especially if sourced from the UN or NGOs – no matter how spurious or absurd, is always treated seriously by the broadcaster.

Also problematic is the fact that all too often the main concern in a news report or interview is prioritising feelings over facts. The ABC’s own editorial guidelines, compelling staff to be proactive in correcting false claims or factual errors even when made by interviewees, are rarely complied with when guests advocate for the Palestinian side.

For example, last January on ABC TV “News”, when asked about longer-term peace, pro-Palestinian lobbyist Nasser Mashni ignored the question and railed against Israel. He falsely cited “accounts” from The Lancet medical journal suggesting 250,000 Palestinians had been killed since October 7. There was no pushback, nor was there any subsequent correction.

By contrast, shortly after interviewing Israel’s Ambassador Amir Maimon on ABC TV “7.30” in August, host Sarah Ferguson released an online video reeling off facts and figures she said disproved his claims that there was no malnutrition in Gaza.

Pro-Israel voices, when they do appear, start with one hand tied behind their back. But employees from the UN or human rights organisations benefit from a “halo effect” that shields them from even minimal scrutiny.

In September, Australian lawyer Chris Sidoti – a member of the permanent UN Commission of Inquiry, whose mandate presupposes Israeli guilt – falsely said on ABC TV that the International Court of Justice warned “that there is a risk of genocide in Gaza.” The program’s host remained silent.

Current ABC Middle East correspondent Matthew Doran has repeatedly incorrectly claimed Israel’s strikes near medical facilities in Gaza breach international law, irrespective of whether or not terrorists are hiding or fighting within or beneath them.

It is rare to find highly regarded, well-informed experts drawn from the mainstream who can explain Israel’s position.

All too common is the practice of ABC journalists providing only the most perfunctory “balance” by very briefly paraphrasing Israeli talking points while often implicitly dismissing them. Rare too are moments when interviewers challenge pro-Palestinian voices with inconvenient truths.

Witness the spectacle last month on ABC Radio National’s “Late Night Live” after host David Marr offended parts of the Palestinian lobby by interrogating the claims of far-left journalist Chris Hedges, who had accused Western media of prioritising Israel’s narrative. The following week, in a far softer interview with UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, Marr did not challenge her accusations of Israeli genocide. The mercurial, extremist Albanese even thanked him: “It was nice”.

The ABC insists its editorial quality is upheld by an open complaints process overseen by its “independent” Ombudsman, and the fact that approximately only five per cent of complaints are upheld shows content meets professional standards. But this is not our experience.

Rather, the warning “Abandon all hope ye who enter” should be prominently displayed on the ABC’s complaints webpage. Moreover, ploughing through the broadcaster’s labyrinth of policies, it becomes clear that the relevant employee has an effective veto over whether any complaint will be upheld.

For instance, in August 2024 the Ombudsman upheld a [non-AIJAC] lodged complaint about an ABC timeline that falsely claimed the International Court of Justice ruling on South Africa’s genocide case found plausible genocide. Yet despite this clear finding – and ICJ President Judge Joan Donoghue’s definitive clarification in a widely shared BBC interview that the Court only found the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide – ABC journalists repeatedly made the false claim again. Yet AIJAC complaints in September 2025 on the same point were summarily rejected.

Another bewildering case came when ABC Global Affairs editor John Lyons and Middle East correspondent Eric Tlozek repeated the false claim in 2024 that a Lancet article estimated 186,000 Palestinians had already died. No such article existed; it was merely a letter speculating about possible cumulative direct and indirect deaths in the future. Although the Ombudsman eventually required Tlozek’s article to be corrected, Lyons — whose errors were more egregious – was cleared.

In both instances, the Ombudsman simply chose to ignore key elements of the complaint. This was especially egregious in the ICJ case, which had directly quoted the Ombudsman’s own citation and reliance in August 2024 on Judge Donoghue’s interview to acknowledge the Court did not find there was “plausible” genocide in Gaza.

The reluctance of ABC staff to accept that they have erred is well known.

In August 2023, Ombudsman Fiona Cameron admitted the ABC is too “defensive”. The ABC’s own independent review in 2022 also criticised its thin skin.

Defenders will call these examples cherry-picking. Alas, they are actually the tip of an immense iceberg. Not only does the ABC have a great deal to answer for, but it is effectively a law unto itself.

Allon Lee is a senior policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.