When ‘balance’ becomes an excuse for exclusion

The ABC and SBS’s decision to reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism, specifically endorsed by the federal government and adopted by the Royal Commission, comes as no surprise. But it is the latest evidence that public and cultural institutions are resisting the recommendations of antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal, who has called for greater measures of accountability in the sector.

Both broadcasters cited editorial independence in their decision to reject the widely accepted definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”

Since October 7, we have seen many forms of this expression in action. How does adopting this definition stifle free speech or legitimate debate, as the ABC claims? It’s some comfort that an ABC spokeswoman said that the broadcaster does not disagree with the “underlying concept of antisemitism”.

The ABC and SBS are vital components of the Australian cultural landscape, and their commitment to telling Australian stories is admirable. It is also true that neither broadcaster has ever funded a scripted series set in the Australian Jewish community, and that we are past the point where this lack of representation can be justified. Having sat with employees of the ABC and SBS over recent months, I noted a lack of genuine interest in addressing this issue.

An SBS spokesperson this week referred to their focus on “social cohesion” and pointed out their “great care” with “language and terminology”. In February, SBS rejected a film I produced about antisemitism in Bondi on the basis that “its content could be received as inflammatory across some communities”, referring to “sensitivities” around the subject matter, “particularly in the context of rising antisemitism and community concerns”, and their need to navigate “negative feedback”.