The ABC is a law unto itself

A scandal involving the BBC‘s news and current affairs coverage, including 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?

Those of us watching, listening to and reading ABC content, know Israel is portrayed as a heartless aggressor, and Palestinians are perpetual victims with no agency. What’s more, this is effectively ABC policy – and this is not conjecture.

In 2019, AIJAC lodged a formal complaint against two ABC reports on the COVID vaccine rollout in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. It was clear that, unlike its media peers, the ABC felt it had no duty 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 … Recognising Israel’s overwhelming advantages and discussing its responsibilities as the occupying power is the appropriate emphasis … This approach is duly favoured by the most prominent international agencies and human rights groups, including the UN Human Rights Council.”

This self-justification constitutes a smoking gun revealing the ABC‘s partisanship. Moreover, it explains story and interviewee selection, construction of reports and the tone of interviews. Accusations against Israel, no matter how spurious or absurd, are treated like gospel.

Contrary to ABC editorial guidelines, which compel staff to correct false claims even when made by interviewees, this rarely happens when guests advocate for the Palestinian side.

Asked on ABC TV last January about longer-term peace, pro-Palestinian lobbyist Nasser Mashni ignored the question and falsely cited “accounts” from the Lancet medical journal suggesting 250,000 Palestinians had been killed since October 7. There was no pushback or correction.

By contrast, after interviewing Israel’s ambassador Amir Maimon on 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 heard, 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 terrorists hiding or fighting within or beneath them.

It is rare to find an expert interviewed to explain Israel’s position. Instead, stripped of nuance, ABC journalists briefly paraphrase Israeli talking points, while often implicitly then dismissing them. Rare too are moments when an interviewer probes pro-Palestinian voices.

Witness the spectacle last month on ABC Radio National’s Late Night Live when host David Marr offended 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 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 is clear the relevant employee has an effective veto over whether any complaint will be upheld.

For instance, in August 2024, the Ombudsman upheld a 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 – ABC journalists repeatedly again made the false claim, and 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 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 actually more egregious) was cleared.

The reluctance of staff to accept fallibility 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 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 (AIJAC).