Senior representatives of the ABC and SBS are expected to appear before the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion as it examines allegations of inaccurate and unbalanced reporting about Israel and the Middle East.
Counsel assisting the commission, Richard Lancaster SC, confirmed today that witnesses from both taxpayer-funded broadcasters would be called during the inquiry’s third public hearing block.
The hearings resumed in Sydney today and will run until July 10, focusing on antisemitism in social media, journalism and broadcasting.
Lancaster said some submissions were “highly critical” of the ABC and SBS and their coverage of the Middle East conflict.
“These media outlets occupy a particularly important, trusted position in the Australian media landscape,” he said.
“Their statutes, charters and policies commit them to high standards of accuracy, impartiality and balance, which they are charged with reflecting and indeed fostering.”
He said submissions alleged the broadcasters had produced inaccurate or unbalanced coverage through both their choice of stories and the way they reported them.
“Witnesses from the public broadcasters themselves will also be called to speak to the approach taken by the ABC and the SBS to their reporting of the conflict,” Lancaster said.
The commission has not confirmed which representatives will give evidence.
ABC managing director Hugh Marks and chair Kim Williams are expected to appear or be represented, along with SBS managing director Jane Palfreyman and chair Dr Nicholas Pappas.
Senior editorial executives, policy managers and staff involved in complaints handling may also be called.
The broadcasters are expected to face questions about story selection, language, sources, headlines, corrections, complaint procedures and the treatment of Israeli and Jewish perspectives.
The commission may also examine whether staff receive sufficient training to recognise antisemitism and distinguish it from legitimate criticism of Israel.
The announcement follows sustained criticism of public broadcaster coverage since the Hamas-led attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, and the war in Gaza.
The commission has received more than 20,000 submissions, although it has not disclosed how many concern the ABC or SBS.
Former Age editor-in-chief Michael Gawenda previously told the commission that parts of the media, including the ABC, had failed to recognise the seriousness of antisemitism after October 7. Another witness, Léa Levy, criticised ABC television coverage she believed gave insufficient recognition to Israeli suffering.
Both broadcasters have defended their journalism and said they are cooperating with the inquiry.
An ABC spokesperson said the corporation had lodged a written submission and would continue to engage constructively. Marks has rejected some criticism of the ABC’s reporting as “unfounded”, while Williams has said the broadcaster stands by its coverage of the Middle East conflict.
SBS said its journalism complied with its charter and code of practice.
“As a public service media organisation, SBS provides accurate, balanced and impartial coverage across a range of matters, including antisemitism and social cohesion,” a spokesperson said.
The broadcasters’ statutory duties are expected to be central to the hearings.
The ABC Act requires its news and information to be accurate and impartial according to recognised standards of objective journalism.
SBS operates under separate legislation and a code of practice covering accuracy, impartiality, balance, prejudice and discrimination.
Another likely issue is their decision not to formally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism. The commission is using the IHRA definition, with commissioner Virginia Bell stressing that it must be applied in context and does not classify ordinary criticism of Israel as antisemitic.
The ABC has said the definition is not inconsistent with its understanding of antisemitism but has raised concerns about some accompanying examples. SBS has similarly relied on its existing charter, code and editorial policies.
Critics argue that general rules on racism and hate speech do not provide enough guidance for identifying antisemitism expressed through attacks on Israel, Zionism or Jewish institutions.
Under the Royal Commissions Act 1902, the inquiry can summon witnesses, take evidence under oath and require the production of documents. Failure to comply with a valid summons or notice without lawful excuse can attract criminal penalties.
There is no suggestion that either broadcaster has refused to cooperate.
The hearing block will also examine social media companies and the spread of antisemitic and extremist content online.
Lancaster said Meta, Google, LinkedIn and TikTok had engaged meaningfully with the commission, while X and Telegram had not responded. Reddit and Twitch had provided limited responses, and Gab had been openly hostile.