Perceptions of bias arising from strongly held views, not systematic favoritism
In the wake of a deadly terror attack on a Hanukkah celebration, Australia's antisemitism envoy has brought before a royal commission a question as old as democratic media itself: who watches the watchmen, and in whose name? Jillian Segal's call for independent oversight of ABC and SBS coverage of Israel and Gaza reflects a Jewish community that feels persistently misrepresented, while the ABC's editorial leadership insists that existing structures already hold the broadcaster to account — and that the complaint record itself tells a more balanced story than any single community's perception. The hearing has surfaced a tension that no regulatory body can easily resolve: the difference between bias and discomfort, between antisemitism and the criticism of a state.
- A royal commission born from the deaths of 15 people at a Hanukkah celebration is now grappling with whether Australia's public broadcasters have made Jewish Australians feel less safe through their coverage of Gaza.
- Antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal is pushing for a new independent oversight committee with real teeth — modelled on the UK's Ofcom — that could scrutinise, and potentially direct, how the ABC and SBS report on the Middle East.
- The ABC is fighting back with its own data: in a six-month period, 51 percent of complaints called its coverage pro-Palestinian and 47 percent called it pro-Israel, a near-perfect split the broadcaster reads as evidence of editorial balance rather than systematic bias.
- A pointed exchange between Segal and Commissioner Virginia Bell exposed the proposal's central vulnerability — an oversight body appointed with particular viewpoints risks becoming a political instrument rather than an editorial safeguard.
- The royal commission must now chart a course between two legitimate fears: the fear of a community that feels its suffering is amplified into hatred, and the fear that new regulatory structures could quietly chill reporting on one of the world's most contested conflicts.
Jillian Segal, Australia's antisemitism envoy, appeared before a royal commission on Thursday with a concrete proposal: the ABC and SBS should be subject to a new independent oversight committee to review their Middle East coverage. Segal argued that a "common and pervasive perception" exists within the Jewish community that both broadcasters paint Israel in a consistently negative light, over-emphasise Palestinian suffering relative to other conflicts, and amplify anti-Israel voices. She cited specific examples — an ABC report that initially gave a wildly compressed timeframe for infant deaths in Gaza, and SBS's use of Gaza's health ministry as a source for casualty figures — as evidence that existing mechanisms were not catching consequential errors.
Gavin Fang, the ABC's editorial director, disputed the characterisation of disproportionate coverage and pointed to the broadcaster's own complaint data as a rebuttal. In the six months from July to December 2025, complaints about ABC Israel-Gaza coverage split almost evenly: 51 percent accused the ABC of being pro-Palestinian, 47 percent accused it of being pro-Israel. No bias complaints had been upheld by the ombudsman or investigated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. Fang acknowledged the infant mortality error as "a bad mistake" but argued that the ABC's existing editorial policies, ombudsman, board, and Acma already constitute meaningful oversight. He questioned what a further layer of review would add.
The hearing's sharpest moment came when Commissioner Virginia Bell asked Segal how a committee composed of people with particular viewpoints might affect public trust in the ABC's independence. Segal suggested Jewish representatives need not sit on the committee, as long as members understood antisemitism — an answer that illustrated the difficulty of designing oversight that is both responsive to community concern and free from the appearance of editorial capture.
The royal commission was established following the Bondi beach terror attack in December 2024, in which 15 people were killed at a Hanukkah celebration. A recurring difficulty throughout the hearings has been distinguishing antisemitism from criticism of Israeli policy — a distinction made harder by the fact that both the ABC and SBS have declined to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which critics argue blurs that very line. The commission's final recommendations will have to weigh a community's genuine sense of harm against the structural risks of creating oversight bodies that could, however unintentionally, narrow the space for reporting on one of the world's most contested conflicts.
Jillian Segal, Australia's antisemitism envoy, appeared before a royal commission on Thursday morning with a straightforward proposal: the ABC and SBS need a new independent oversight committee to review their coverage of Israel and the Middle East conflict. The two public broadcasters already have ombudsmen to field complaints, but Segal argued that external scrutiny was necessary because, she said, there exists a "common and pervasive perception" within the Jewish community that their reporting on Gaza and Israel lacks balance, emphasizes Palestinian suffering over other conflicts, and amplifies anti-Israel voices at the expense of other perspectives.
Segal framed the issue in terms of how the coverage is experienced. "It's the perception of the Jewish community feeling constantly that they are being faced with reporting about the Middle East, about Gaza and about Israel in a way that paints Israel constantly in a negative light," she told the inquiry. She pointed to specific examples: an ABC report that initially stated 14,000 babies would die in Gaza within 48 hours without aid, when the correct timeframe was one year; and SBS's reliance on Gaza's health ministry as an official source for casualty figures, which Segal characterized as inflated. She also suggested the broadcasters could balance their coverage by running more positive stories about Israeli initiatives and achievements.
Gavin Fang, the ABC's editorial director, pushed back directly. He disputed the claim that coverage was disproportionate and noted that the national broadcaster had in fact covered the rise in antisemitism. He pointed to the ABC's editorial policies, which commit the organization to impartiality, accuracy, and fairness—standards he said public media is held to and which the ABC accepts. When Segal cited the UK media regulator Ofcom as a model for what independent oversight could look like—noting that Ofcom can investigate stories, direct the BBC to take content down, and levy fines—Fang countered that the existing ombudsman, the ABC's board, and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Acma) already provide meaningful oversight. "I'm not sure how another oversight body might function in addition to that existing oversight body, which already has the power to review and to examine the ABC's content," he said.
The ABC released a statement noting that Middle East coverage generates more complaints than any other topic, yet no complaints of bias in ABC News have been upheld by the ombudsman or investigated by Acma. The statement included a striking detail: in the six months from July to December 2025, 51 percent of complaints claimed the ABC's Israel-Gaza coverage was pro-Palestinian, while 47 percent claimed it was pro-Israel. The ABC interpreted this split as evidence that "perceptions of bias are arising from strongly held views across the community rather than systematic editorial favouritism." The ombudsman has found five breaches of editorial standards over the period in question.
When Commissioner Virginia Bell asked Segal how a committee composed of people with particular viewpoints might affect public trust in the ABC's independence, Segal responded that the committee could be appointed without Jewish representatives as long as members understood antisemitism. This exchange highlighted a tension running through the hearing: how to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel's military actions and antisemitism itself, and whether new regulatory structures might inadvertently chill coverage of the Middle East conflict.
The royal commission was established following the Bondi beach terror attack in December 2024, in which 15 people were killed at a Hanukkah celebration. One recurring theme in the hearings has been the difficulty of defining antisemitism without conflating it with criticism of Israel. Both the ABC and SBS have declined to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which critics argue conflates Israel criticism with antisemitism and could have a chilling effect on Middle East reporting. The counsel assisting the inquiry, Richard Lancaster SC, noted earlier that some submissions were "highly critical" of the public broadcasters' Middle East coverage, alleging inaccuracy and imbalance in both story selection and reportage.
Fang acknowledged the 14,000-babies error as "a bad mistake" and explained the ABC's approach to corrections: attempting to fix errors quickly, ensuring the same audience that heard the mistake also hears the correction, and weighing public interest against potential harm. He also acknowledged that unfairly negative coverage of Israel could lead some people to conflate the state with individual Israelis, fueling antisemitism. Yet he framed the ABC's role as providing "accurate and impartial information to Australians to make up their own mind about events," and defended the broadcaster's commitment to challenging journalism even on difficult subjects.
The hearing exposed a fundamental disagreement about what oversight should look like and whether existing mechanisms are sufficient. Segal's proposal for an independent committee reflects a view that current structures are not adequately addressing community concerns. Fang's defense of existing oversight reflects a view that adding another layer of review could complicate editorial independence without improving accuracy. The royal commission will ultimately have to weigh these competing concerns as it develops recommendations on how to address antisemitism while preserving press freedom and avoiding the weaponization of antisemitism definitions against legitimate criticism.
Notable Quotes
It's the perception of the Jewish community feeling constantly that they are being faced with reporting about the Middle East, about Gaza and about Israel in a way that paints Israel constantly in a negative light.— Jillian Segal, antisemitism envoy
I'm not sure how another oversight body might function in addition to that existing oversight body, which already has the power to review and to examine the ABC's content.— Gavin Fang, ABC editorial director
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Segal think a new committee is necessary when ombudsmen already exist?
She's arguing that internal ombudsmen aren't enough because the perception of bias persists in the Jewish community regardless of how many complaints are upheld. She wants external eyes—people outside the organization—to have real power to review and direct coverage.
But the ABC says their ombudsman found no upheld bias complaints. Isn't that evidence the system works?
That's exactly what Fang argues. But Segal would say the absence of upheld complaints doesn't address the underlying perception. She's pointing to specific stories—the babies claim, the Gaza health ministry figures—and saying these errors and choices reveal a pattern, even if they don't technically violate the ombudsman's criteria.
What's the real tension here?
It's about whether criticism of Israel's military actions is being conflated with antisemitism. If you create a committee specifically focused on Israel coverage, you risk making journalists more cautious about reporting on Gaza. That's what the broadcasters fear. Segal sees it differently—she thinks accurate, balanced reporting is what's needed, and that current coverage isn't meeting that standard.
Does Segal want to silence criticism of Israel?
She says no—she's asking for accuracy and balance, and she suggests the broadcasters could run more positive stories about Israel too. But the structural question remains: who decides what's balanced? And if a committee with antisemitism expertise is reviewing coverage, does that chill legitimate reporting?
What did the ABC's statement about the 51-47 split actually mean?
They were saying: if half the complaints say we're pro-Palestinian and half say we're pro-Israel, that suggests we're actually in the middle, and the complaints reflect the community's own divisions rather than our bias. Segal would likely counter that both groups could be wrong—that the coverage could be inaccurate in ways that don't neatly fit into those categories.
What happens next?
The royal commission has to write recommendations. They need to figure out how to address antisemitism concerns without creating a regulatory structure that makes journalists afraid to report on Israel-Palestine. That's the hard part.