ABC Concedes It Has Not Adopted Global Definition of Anti-Semitism, Disputes Bias Claim

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has denied claims that its coverage systematically favoured anti-Israel perspectives, but conceded it could not guarantee a consistent understanding of anti-Semitism across its workforce.The concerns were raised during a hearing of the Royal Commission on Anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion, which was established in the wake of the Bondi Beach terror attacks, where ABC executives were questioned about the impartiality of their coverage.ABC Editorial Director Gavin Fang said he was aware of the sentiment, but did not agree with it.“I think that in all of our reporting, our goal is to meet our standards and to be accurate, to be impartial,” he said on July 9.“We seek to, where relevant, hear from affected parties on a variety of sides of the conflict, and that means hearing from both Palestinians and from Israelis, from hearing from government sources, and from non-government, and from hearing from people that have relevant stories, so that Australians can understand what’s happening.”Fang also defended the ABC’s decision not to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism because it was “contested” and could therefore impact the ABC’s independence.The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism includes blaming Jews collectively for the actions of the Israeli government, applying double standards to Israel that are not applied to other countries, denying Jewish people the right to self-determination, and using anti-Semitic tropes and stereotypes.The definition has been opposed by those who disagree with the existence of the state of Israel.“I accept that the IHRA definition and its examples may be useful in some organisations and in government and in other places,” Fang said.“My advice has related to the application of that type of definition in an editorial policy setting, so how that would relate to our content.“It’s my view, and has been my advice, that adopting a definition that is contested would not help us with both our perception of independence and our independence more broadly, and that our current framework, as it relates to our editorial policies, is effective in doing that.”When questioned by Nicholas Bender SC, counsel assisting various Jewish community bodies, on whether the broadcaster could ensure its staff shared a consistent understanding of anti-Semitism, Fang said ABC employees were provided with policies and guidance.However, he acknowledged there would always be “different applications, or different understandings” within any large group of people.“Is it possible, for example, that people handling complaints might have a different idea in mind of what anti-Semitism is to the people who are responsible for editorial content?” Bender asked.“It’s possible,” Fang said.However, he said the ABC had anti-racism training and editorial policies to give staff guidance on appropriate content.Fang further said he did not believe the policy needed revision.His testimony comes after that of Australia’s anti-Semitism Envoy Jillian Segal, who said the Jewish community felt the national broadcaster presented biased or inaccurate reporting about the Israel-Hamas War and overemphasised Gaza compared to other conflicts.“I’m not in any way suggesting that they shouldn’t cover the matters that they consider important, but there are also lots of important issues around the world,” Segal said.“There are major famines, there are wars that we don’t hear about at all in Africa.”Segal also criticised SBS’s use of death statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry, claiming the figures are “grossly inaccurate” and fail to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.AAP contributed to this story.