The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is facing ongoing criticism over its editorial standards and complaints handling, particularly concerning its coverage of Israel. Recent examinations highlight issues with the broadcaster’s approach to impartiality, internal policies, and external oversight mechanisms.

In mid-2024 and 2025, complaints arose regarding ABC reporting that described Israel’s actions in Gaza as potentially constituting “genocide.” The ABC’s internal Ombudsman initially upheld a complaint that an ABC report incorrectly attributed a finding to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding Israel’s conduct. The Ombudsman cited a clarification by former ICJ president Joan Donoghue, who stated the court did not find evidence of genocide but only acknowledged a “plausible right” for Palestinians to seek protection. However, a later complaint about similar language used on ABC Radio resulted in the Ombudsman reversing this position, ruling the phrasing an “appropriate paraphrase.” Critics point to this inconsistency as indicative of deeper institutional bias.

An internal ABC Middle East editorial guidance document, obtained through freedom of information, further fuels debate by heavily favoring narratives supportive of Palestinian claims. For example, its section on “genocide” devotes significantly more space to arguments supporting genocide allegations against Israel than to contrary views. Such editorial direction has been scrutinized in testimony before the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. There, ABC editorial director Gavin Fang acknowledged that the corporation develops policies that the Ombudsman uses to assess its journalism, potentially limiting external accountability. Fang also admitted that “unfairly negative coverage” of Israel risks fueling antisemitism by conflating Israeli government actions with Australian Jewish communities.

Concerns extend to the ABC’s complaint handling processes. The Ombudsman, established as an independent reviewer, has been criticized for lacking effective enforcement powers. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), a statutory regulator, has found multiple breaches of impartiality by the ABC, including from a Four Corners episode, but the ABC has disputed these findings and declined to take corrective action. ACMA chair Nerida O’Loughlin has expressed frustration over the broadcaster’s recurrent rejection of regulator decisions.

The reviewer of the ABC complaints framework highlighted a “dismissive attitude” toward complainants and a reluctance to accept criticism, particularly of high-profile programs. Despite attempts to reform by instituting the Ombudsman role, critics argue that accountability remains insufficient as many complaints are still handled internally by the teams responsible for the content, raising questions about impartiality and transparency. Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal described this as the ABC “marking their own homework,” acting simultaneously as judge, counsel, and jury.

Calls for change emphasize the need for genuinely independent, external oversight of all ABC editorial content with enforceable standards and remedies. Advocates argue such scrutiny is essential for the ABC to fulfill its role as a publicly funded institution committed to fair, impartial journalism and to avoid sustaining narratives that may contribute to social divisions within Australian society.