As Australia grapples with declining birth rates, SBS has assembled a panel for its current affairs program The Feed in which half the voices share deep organizational and ideological ties to anti-abortion activism — raising a quiet but consequential question about what broadcasters mean when they promise diversity of viewpoint. The episode, due to air next Wednesday, has drawn scrutiny not because debate is unwelcome, but because clustering of related positions can create the appearance of balance while narrowing the actual range of ideas in the room. It is a tension as old as the public squa
SBS under fire for platforming anti-abortion advocates on fertility debate
Three panelists from the same activist network isn't diversity—it's clustering.
Mark
So SBS is putting three anti-abortion advocates on a panel about fertility rates. Why is that a problem? Shouldn't different viewpoints be heard?
Mimi
The issue isn't that anti-abortion views exist or that they're discussed. It's that all three panelists are from the same activist network—they know each other, they work together, they share content. That's not diversity; that's clustering.
Luke
But we should be precise about what we know. SBS says the show will fact-check and move the conversation out of algorithm-driven spaces. Do we have evidence that didn't happen, or are we objecting to the guest list before the episode airs?
Mimi
Fair point. But look at what these panelists have actually said publicly. Mamalis debated whether women should vote. McKellar confronts strangers about abortion on the street. These aren't moderate positions being presented alongside moderate ones.
Mark
What's the connection between fertility rates and anti-abortion activism? Why would SBS pair these topics?
Mimi
That's the real question. Falling fertility rates are a demographic fact. But anti-abortion advocates often frame immigration and reproductive choice as threats to Western culture. By platforming them on this topic, SBS risks letting that framing shape the conversation without naming it.
Luke
The statement says the format challenges diverse views. We don't know if it does until we see it. But I'll note: three of six panelists from one network is a factual imbalance, regardless of what the fact-checking does.
Mark
And the broader context—the Telegraph calling protesters "subhuman ghouls"—does that change how we should read this?
Mimi
It suggests Australian media is wrestling with where the line is between platforming speech and amplifying extremism. SBS might genuinely believe it's doing the former. Critics worry it's doing the latter.
Luke
The Telegraph's language is clearly inflammatory. SBS's decision is more ambiguous. We should keep those separate.
El Pulso
- Three of the six panelists — George Mamalis of Turning Point Australia, content creator Elspeth McKellar, and Steph Bastiaan of Women's Forum Australia — are all closely linked to anti-abortion activist Joanna Howe, who responded to news of the episode with visible excitement.
- Mamalis has publicly characterized feminism as a 'death cult,' debated whether women should retain voting rights, and urged 'Anglo-Saxons' to procreate — positions that critics argue sit well outside the mainstream of Australian political discourse.
- McKellar has built her platform by confronting strangers about abortion in public spaces and has praised figures whose public statements on consent drew widespread condemnation.
- SBS defended the lineup by framing The Feed as a space that moves online conversations away from polarizing algorithms and subjects all views to fact-checking — but did not address whether three panelists sharing the same activist network constitutes genuine ideological diversity.
- The episode lands amid broader unease in Australian media, with the Daily Telegraph separately drawing criticism this week for describing pro-Palestinian demonstrators as 'subhuman ghouls,' pointing to a wider reckoning over where editorial responsibility ends and amplification of extreme rhetoric begins.
As Australia grapples with declining birth rates, SBS has assembled a panel for its current affairs program The Feed in which half the voices share deep organizational and ideological ties to anti-abortion activism — raising a quiet but consequential question about what broadcasters mean when they promise diversity of viewpoint. The episode, due to air next Wednesday, has drawn scrutiny not because debate is unwelcome, but because clustering of related positions can create the appearance of balance while narrowing the actual range of ideas in the room. It is a tension as old as the public square itself: who decides which voices belong at the table, and what obligations come with the power to convene.
SBS is preparing to air an episode of The Feed on falling fertility rates, and the panel it has assembled has drawn sharp criticism from media observers. Three of the six participants have significant ties to anti-abortion activism, and all three are connected to the same activist network — raising questions about whether the broadcaster's promise of diverse debate reflects the reality of who is in the room.
George Mamalis, who leads the South Australian chapter of Turning Point Australia — an offshoot of the late American far-right influencer Charlie Kirk's organization — has described feminism as a 'death cult' for granting women reproductive autonomy, linked declining birth rates to immigration, and publicly debated whether women should retain voting rights. Elspeth McKellar, associated with the explicitly anti-abortion organization Bird Flip, has made her name confronting strangers about abortion in public and has praised figures whose statements on consent sparked public controversy. The third panelist with anti-abortion ties, Steph Bastiaan of Women's Forum Australia, belongs to an organization that presents itself as pro-woman while posting predominantly anti-trans content and has been a consistent supporter of anti-abortion activist Joanna Howe — who responded to news of the episode by writing 'Can't wait to see this.'
The remaining three panelists offer a different profile: a content creator who speaks against racism and domestic violence, a commentator who has criticized One Nation, and a model who recently published a list of 117 reasons for not wanting children.
SBS defended the lineup by saying The Feed invites creators with significant followings and different viewpoints, and frames the format as drawing online conversations away from polarizing algorithms into a space where views are challenged and fact-checked. The network did not address whether three panelists sharing organizational and ideological ties constitutes genuine diversity, or simply a clustering of related positions dressed as balance.
The episode arrives as Australian media more broadly confronts questions about platform responsibility. The Daily Telegraph this week described pro-Palestinian demonstrators — gathering as Jewish Australians marked the third anniversary of the Hamas attack — as 'subhuman ghouls' and 'primitive,' language its editor said he agreed with. Together, these moments reflect a deepening tension in Australian public life between the value of open debate and the editorial choices that determine whose voices carry farthest.
SBS is preparing to air an episode of The Feed next Wednesday devoted to falling fertility rates, and the panel composition has drawn sharp criticism from media observers concerned about who gets a platform to shape the conversation. Three of the six panelists have deep ties to anti-abortion activism, raising questions about whether the broadcaster is inadvertently amplifying voices from the margins of Australian political life.
George Mamalis, who heads Turning Point Australia in South Australia—an offshoot of the late far-right influencer Charlie Kirk's organization—will be among the speakers. Mamalis has characterized feminism as a "death cult" because it grants women reproductive autonomy. He has linked declining birth rates to what he calls "stupid things like mass immigration" and expressed anxiety about Western culture being "replaced." In a recent podcast appearance, he acknowledged that some immigration was necessary because "no one's having kids," before urging "Anglo-Saxons" to procreate. He has also engaged in public debate with anti-abortion activist Joanna Howe about whether women should retain voting rights, later clarifying that discussing an idea does not mean endorsing it, though the exchange itself signals the ideological territory these figures inhabit.
Also on the panel is Elspeth McKellar, a content creator associated with Bird Flip, an organization explicitly dedicated to ending abortion access. McKellar has built an online presence by confronting strangers in public spaces about abortion. She has publicly called Joanna Howe and her husband James "heroes," a designation that came after controversy surrounding a podcast in which James Howe stated he did not "do consent" and Joanna Howe suggested that little could go wrong if women "stay public, stay vertical." The third panelist with anti-abortion connections is Steph Bastiaan from Women's Forum Australia, an organization that describes itself as pro-woman while posting predominantly anti-trans content. Howe previously served on WFA's research committee, and the organization has been a vocal supporter of her anti-abortion work.
All three are closely associated with Howe's broader activist network. Mamalis regularly appears alongside her and shares her content. The interconnections run deep enough that Howe responded to news of the episode with enthusiasm, writing "Can't wait to see this" in response to a post from Bastiaan about the show.
The remaining three panelists present a different profile. Dita is a content creator who speaks against racism and domestic violence. Andrew Lewis describes himself as bringing logic back and has criticized One Nation. Ellie Gonsalves, a model and actor, recently published a list of 117 reasons for not wanting children.
SBS defended the composition in a statement, saying The Feed "invites content creators with a significant following, who have different viewpoints on a topical issue" and facilitates "challenging conversations" with fact-checking. The broadcaster framed the format as moving "common online conversations away from the influence of polarising algorithms into a space where diverse views are challenged." The network did not address the specific concern that three of six panelists share ideological and organizational ties, or whether that distribution constitutes genuine diversity of viewpoint or a clustering of related positions.
The episode arrives as Australian media outlets grapple more broadly with questions about platform responsibility. Earlier this week, the Daily Telegraph used language describing pro-Palestinian demonstrators on October 7—as Jewish Australians marked the third anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel—as "subhuman ghouls" and "primitive." The paper quoted Israel's ambassador to Australia calling the rallies "a celebration of a death cult," language the Telegraph's editor, Ben English, said he agreed with. The Telegraph did not respond to requests for comment on its word choices. These moments, taken together, suggest ongoing tension in Australian media between commitments to diverse speech and concerns about the consequences of amplifying extreme rhetoric without sufficient editorial friction.
Citas Notables
The format takes common online conversations away from the influence of polarising algorithms into a space where diverse views are challenged.— SBS spokesperson
Can't wait to see this— Joanna Howe, responding to news of the episode
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en The Guardian ↗
Society & Civil Rights