The fraught relationship between Jewish community leaders and the ABC

OSCAR KASPI-CRUTCHETT: Jewish leaders claim the ABC is biased against Israel and the Jewish community. ABC complaints figures show it has offended the Israeli and Palestinian sides fairly equally

AUSTRALIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY organisations have sounded the alarm over anti-Israel bias in the ABC for over a decade. These accusations have reached new heights this year following the airing of a controversial Q+A episode on the Israel-Gaza conflict in May 2021.

Citing a lack of pro-Israel voices in the program, community leaders issued widespread condemnation of the discussion, with the Zionist Federation of Australia, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and AIJAC each submitting complaints to the ABC about the broadcast.  

In their public statements, the groups made clear that their grievances with the ABC extend far beyond the episode itself and concern the broadcaster at large - its culture, complaints handling process and regulatory procedures:

“This episode yet again demonstrates something is clearly deeply wrong at the ABC.” – AIJAC President, Colin Rubenstein

“[This] was merely the latest unfortunate example of a long history of exclusion of an authentic Jewish community viewpoint on Q + A and elsewhere by the ABC on matters of vital concern to our community … We emphasise that the culture of bias and exclusion against our community is not limited to the  Q+A program - ECAJ letter to the ABC

In August, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) announced an investigation into the Q+A episode and its compliance with ABC editorial standards. While the ZFA, AIJAC and ECAJ welcomed the move, they made clear that it did not satisfy their overarching concerns.

Upon the announcement of the investigation, the ZFA maintained that ‘the ABC needs a properly-independent, external complaints mechanism” – a demand echoed by AIJAC and ECAJ respectively.

Although calls for stricter ABC regulation by Australia’s Jewish groups are nothing new, the last few months has seen a marked escalation of their intensity. The ECAJ has charged the ABC with harbouring “a pervasive culture of bias, if not antipathy, towards … the mainstream Australian Jewish community, within the unit responsible for organising and producing the Q + A program.”

In June, the ZFA accused the ABC of “indoctrinating children” in a Behind the News episode covering the Israel-Palestine conflict. A few weeks later, AIJAC Executive Director Dr Colin Rubenstein appeared on the Bolt Report accusing the ABC of using “so-called experts” to promote “an Israel supercritical agenda.”

The accusations against the ABC levelled by ECAJ in particular contain two points of ambiguity. First, it is unclear who precisely the organisation is referring to when describing the “mainstream” Jewish community. Second, it is also unclear what the basis is for the ECAJ conflating anti-Israel bias with antipathy towards Australian Jews. Further elaboration on this distinction is yet to be provided.

These allegations have been integrated into an ongoing campaign by conservative politicians and activists to delegitimise the public broadcaster. Shortly after the airing of the Q+A episode, Liberal Senator Alex Antic took to Senate Estimates to describe the ABC as “institutionally antisemitic.”

Conservative media figures such as Andrew Bolt and Chris Kenny, who both write for News Ltd publications, have repeated the accusations of anti-Israel bias and demanded stronger monitoring of the broadcaster.

Several Coalition Cabinet Ministers have also spoken out in support of stronger regulation of  the ABC, including Alan Tudge, Paul Fletcher and Nicolle Flint.

In October, the ABC announced that it would be conducting an independent review of its complaints handling process – the third such review in 11 years. Previous reviews, conducted in 2018 and 2009 respectively, found that the ABC “effectively manages complaints” and that its processes were “well developed and transparent.”

In statements to The Jewish Independent, Australia’s Jewish groups welcomed the announcement of a third review but reiterated their support for a regulatory overhaul of the ABC regardless. Bren Carlil, Director of Public Affairs at the ZFA, argued the review was a welcome step because “the current mechanism appears more designed to clear the ABC of any and all wrongdoing, rather than determining whether an article breaches … editorial guidelines.”

Dr Colin Rubenstein of AIJAC cited the “appallingly biased” episode of Q+A in his response to the review. He reinforced AIJAC’s hope that “the review will ultimately result in an external complaints procedure that … enforces and upholds the ABC Code of Practice.”

Jillian Segal AO, President of ECAJ, noted that the review was not “imposed on it by the Government or Parliament” and that the ABC “determined its own terms of reference and nominated its own reviewers.” She expressed hope that the review would avoid whitewashing and “recommend real reform” in the form of establishing an external complaints process.

The calls for independent and external monitoring of the ABC seem to overlook the existence of ACMA – which is both external and independent by design. Its members are appointed by the Governor-General, and none are affiliated with the broadcaster.

Peter Wertheim, Co-CEO of ECAJ, has argued in the Australian Jewish News that ACMA is still insufficient because it “lacks the time, resources and expertise to do the job effectively.”

If the issue is a matter of resources, it is unclear why a new external regulator is required at all and not simply more funding for ACMA.

Their hopes that the review will result in yet another external monitor being imposed appear far-fetched. The review’s stated aim is to “improve ABC self-regulation frameworks.”If acceptance of this review is conditional on it recommending more external regulation, then the review is destined to disappoint. That is simply not its purpose.

It should be noted that, in relation to the Q+A program  alone, the ABC has met with Jewish community leaders to hear their concerns. Following the meeting, the ABC accused the ECAJ of publicly misrepresenting their position in a press release issued on June 23.^. Since then, the episode has been subject to multiple layers of accountability: an internal investigation from the Audience and Consumer Affairs Unit and an external investigation from ACMA.

We should consider how the already frosty relationship between these organisations and the ABC may have influenced their characterisation of the broadcaster. This dispute over the Q+A episode should not be seen in isolation – it is only the latest in a litany of accusations of bias levelled by these bodies against the ABC.

Now, the ABC has announced a sweeping review of its entire complaints system – despite a similar review occurring only three years ago. That review was called amid complaints by then Prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, about the ABC’s reporting of tax cuts, and left-wing bias in the Canberra press gallery.

In addition, the agriculture industry had complained about coverage of water management, and Dick Smith had mounted a public campaign in 2017 over alleged bias about its coverage of immigration and population growth.

As a public broadcaster, the ABC must be subjected to high standards of transparency and impartiality. It is entirely legitimate to scrutinise its coverage for bias. However, the broadcaster appears to have been characterised by its detractors in recent months as systemically antisemitic, fundamentally biased, above accountability, and institutionally dismissive of community feedback. These are serious accusations with a very high burden of proof.

Analysis of ABC annual reports show that, between 2010 and 2021, the broadcaster has investigated 28,526 complaints from the public – all while weathering years of budget cuts from the Coalition government. Almost 2,000 of those complaints were upheld.

The ABC has demonstrated a clear willingness to publicly admit faults in its coverage of Israel in the past. Since 2010, it has upheld ten complaints of anti-Israel bias – many levelled against major programs such as RN Drive and the Drum. ABC publishes and describes these complaints on its website in full view of the public, along with all other upheld complaints.

It is worth reflecting  on the observation made by ABC CEO David Anderson in Senate Estimates in May this year: of the complaints received on its coverage of the Middle East since May, 42% alleged a pro-Israel bias and/or anti-Palestinian, compared to 29% pro-Palestinian and/or anti-Israel.

Evidently, when covering the Israel-Palestinian conflict, achieving unobjectionable impartiality is no mean feat. Someone, or everyone, will always be unhappy.