There was a time when the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was as reliable and unremarkable as the morning sun. It was, in the truest sense, “Our ABC.” You might grumble about a show you didn’t like, but you never doubted whose side it was on. It was the place we went to understand each other, to see our own rugged faces reflected in its dramas, and to hear our own complex stories told with honesty.
Today, that familiar house feels occupied by strangers. The perception that the ABC is no longer ours isn’t a fringe theory whispered in the shadows; it’s a growing sentiment felt across the nation, fuelled not by one single act, but by a thousand small cuts against the body of public trust.
The most profound wound is the perception of ideological capture. The ABC was built on a charter of impartiality, but for a growing number of Australians, it has become a fortress of groupthink. The coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict has been the most glaring example, stripping away any pretence of neutrality. In recent months the broadcaster has faced criticism from multiple directions over its handling of the war between Israel and Hamas.
Complaints have centred on the framing of headlines, the language used to describe civilian deaths, and the selection of interview guests. Some viewers argue that Israeli security concerns are downplayed, while others believe the suffering of Palestinians is softened or hedged with bureaucratic language. The problem is not simply that people disagree – disagreement is inevitable in a conflict this bitter – but that the ABC increasingly finds itself at the centre of the dispute rather than above it. A national broadcaster should be the place Australians go to escape the shouting match, not another participant in it.
When the national broadcaster is accused of framing one of the world’s most complex conflicts with a simplistic, partisan lens, it doesn’t merely alienate one side – it signals to every viewer that their own eyes and ears are no longer reliable, that editorial judgment now owns them. Conversations with former staff and insiders have only reinforced claims of an entrenched culture of bias, narrow viewpoint diversity, and pressure to conform to preferred editorial positions.
This perceived bias bleeds into every corner of the newsroom. The dismissal of Antoinette Lattouf, a presenter whose crime seemed to be sharing a human rights report from the United Nations, sent a chilling signal. Was it a stand for impartiality, or a capitulation to organised pressure? The subsequent leaks and legal battles painted a picture of an organisation in chaos, more concerned with internal politics and external lobbying than with the simple pursuit of truth.
And when the truth is pursued, it is often done with a recklessness that undermines the entire institution. In the race to compete with commercial networks and the endless churn of the online news cycle, verification sometimes appears to have taken a back seat to speed and impact. Corrections are issued quietly after the damage is done, while the original framing lingers in the public mind. Each small error might seem insignificant on its own, but collectively they create the impression of a newsroom that has lost its traditional caution – the very caution that once made the ABC the most trusted voice in Australian media.
We see it in the small things, too, which are perhaps the most telling. The recent accusations of deceptively editing a Donald Trump speech to make him appear incoherent are a case study in modern media malpractice. It is the kind of cheap trick you expect from partisan digital startups, not from a public broadcaster funded by every taxpayer in the country. It suggests a mindset that sees the audience not as citizens to be informed, but as consumers to be manipulated into a desired emotional response.
The consequence of this slow erosion is a quiet exodus. Many Australians have simply stopped tuning in. They have decided that if they want a political opinion, they can get it for free on social or independent media; if they want entertainment, they can pay for it on streaming services. They are asking a simple question: “If the ABC no longer represents me, and I’m paying for it, what exactly am I buying?”
The ABC was founded on the idea that a healthy democracy needs a shared space, a common ground where we can argue, learn, and grow together. But you can’t have a common ground when half the country feels the ground has been pulled out from under them. When the national broadcaster becomes just another voice in the partisan choir, it loses its reason for being.
Trust, once lost, is rarely restored by press releases or internal reviews. It is rebuilt slowly, through humility, transparency, and a willingness to hear criticism from the very public the broadcaster exists to serve.
We don’t need the ABC to be a cheerleader for any political party, or a megaphone for any particular lobby. We need it to be what it was always meant to be: ours. A place where a farmer in South Australia and an academic in Canberra can both see their country reflected fairly. Until the ABC rediscovers that sacred duty of neutrality, it will remain just a building in Ultimo – expensive, contested, and utterly foreign to the people who paid for it.
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.
Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Agree with you and as you say most of us have quietly stopped watching and moved over to social media to get our news and information from independent sources. Very sad, I feel the ABC has not only been abandoned by its once loyal viewers but it has also been abandoned by the Labor Govt who a lot of us thought would hold some sort of enquiry if not a Royal Commission into the ABC when they won power four years ago, doesn’t seem they are interested in doing anything about its demise. I wonder why that is.
I completely agree, Michael.
I have written to the ABC about the lack of in-depth analysis of current affairs at a time when an impartial analysis is absolutely essential to counter, among other things the head-on attack by SKY (soon the be renamed News 24) as Murdoch seeks to kil the public broadcaster, with FOX NEWS type conspiracy theories and misinformation overload and opinions masquerading as news analysis.
At present there is only one nightly, regular current affairs TV program, the 7.30 Report, but it only goes to air four nights a week and we can’t expect Sarah Ferguson, as good as she is, to carry the entire load : Planet America takes a light hearted view of the chaos that is Washington but beyond that, you have to rely on SBS but worthy of note is the excellent weekly *Washington Atlantic overview on Sundays.
Where is all the ABC money being spent?
I’m not a TV viewer so cannot comment at that level but in regard to the ABC website, revamped a year or so ago… I took every opportunity to make the point that what they had was perfectly okay and that it was unacceptable that they were dumping the old format – a format which had served well for many years – in favour of a ‘new flavour’ – a flavour which was utterly distasteful, and since its inception has repeatedly shown itself to be facile, superficial, unserious, inappropriate.
Funny (peculiar) how when the changeover was happening, they posted that they welcomed comments about the new format, but obviously the decision was locked in and the thousands who objected were entirely ignored.
The(IPA)BC is not even a shadow of the glorious thing it was even a generation ago.
Funding cuts and the replacement of media people with neolib fanatics hurts it deeply.
As a rusted-on ABC (and SBS) viewer I disagree with the contention made – the ABC churns out consistently high-quality TV content such as Foreign Correspondent, Australian Story, Four Corners, Media Watch along with the programs mentioned (7.30 and Planet America). I also enjoy Hard Quiz although Tom Gleeson is a polarising host, The Weekly, Back Roads – this is content you will never find on other FTA channels and i will continue to watch them rather than streaming services, which i also use at times. Having said that, the alleged pressure from the Zionists to have Antoinette Lattouf removed was concerning and the 7pm news is no longer compulsory viewing (SBS World News is far superior) and Insiders seems to have been steered to the right under ex-Sky News presenter, David Speers. No matter how many cents (or dollars) it costs to keep it going, IMHO the ABC is worth it.
Thanks, Michael, for an excellent article on an important subject.
The links are amazing. The ‘concerned staff’ letter to management and colleagues as reported by Aljazeera reflects the problems many viewers/readers have long had, and more.
The list of cases of double standards through language reminded me of a number of things, one of which was a Q&A episode on Israel-Gaza with Maher Mughrabi, in which Mughrabi picked Karvelas up on labelling the Palestinian issues as Hamas’s issues and discussing them was rewarding Hamas; he then went on to say the most profound assessment of Hamas I’ve ever heard.
This episode is no longer on iview, a search for it yields an oops message – not there. A search on youtube resulted in being sent back to the oops message. Thank goodness for search engines. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7mNOUfABmg/ and for the very beginning of the exchange https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQAHSEujKv0/
The other Israel-Gaza episode of Q&A with Dave Sharma et al is still on ABC iview and youtube. Hmmmm, could it have anything to do with Kim Williams? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zasokhQDQpw
I feel like Carolyn, although I’d rather see the handpicked-by-Howard-and-Morrison ABC board kicked out and replaced by one chosen through the independent body supposed to do it, rather than a Royal Commission. I was pleased to know it wasn’t just me imagining things, after seeing Jimdandelion on The Guardian point out that Labor seems to now be making more appearances on SkyNews than they do on the ABC.
Bewdy Thommo.
If you “fake” the news by altering it to suit your belief system then you are “fake news” furthermore, you justify the Trump’s of the world in calling you such.
You cannot criticise someone’s tactics when you use the same tactics yourself.
Michelle Obama said it best…
When they go low? We go high!
Fred Zhang writes on Pearls and Irritations, he often analyses media coverage of China. All too often he has to take the ABC to task for, imo, anti-China bias.
Here is an excerpt from an earlier article of his that I believe illustrates Michael’s point, “In the race to compete with commercial networks and the endless churn of the online news cycle, verification sometimes appears to have taken a back seat to speed and impact.”
Recently, the United States alleged that China secretly ran a nuclear weapon test six years ago, as a senior American official stood up at a Geneva disarmament conference and gave a date – 22 June, 2020. Our most trusted public broadcaster, the ABC, quickly carried the Reuters wire. While our major private network, Sky News, brought in a former defence official to explain why it all sounded plausible.
Neither mentioned the most trustworthy organisation on Earth whose sole job is to detect nuclear explosions.
And that’s the problem.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO), operates a global sensor network – seismic, acoustic, atmospheric – purpose-built to catch covert nuclear tests. It is how we know when North Korea tests. It is how we would know if anyone else did.
On 22 June, 2020, it detected nothing. The organisation said so plainly on its own website: “the CTBTO’s IMS did not detect any event consistent with the characteristics of a nuclear weapon test explosion at that time. Subsequent, more detailed analyses have not altered that determination.” Fred Zhang https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/02/how-a-nuclear-test-that-never-happened-became-news/
The recent accusations of deceptively editing a Donald Trump speech to make him appear incoherent …
MSM has been sanewashing his speeches for years to make them appear coherent. Most of what he says is garbled nonsense. No special editing is required to produce an appearance of incoherence, because that is the reality.
I gave up on the ABC during Buttrose’s reign. The obvious Murdochisation of it was too much for me. There is still some occasional light relief available there, but it’s useless for accurate political news and analysis.
Standard “Aunty” bashing.
Next you will call for an inquiry, to an enquiry to which commercial media is never subjected.
Grow up, of course the ABC reports the same stuff that commercial media does, all media gets its war stories from the same source. And oh yes, from the same bias – who knew !
Perhaps you will claim.that contribnuter’s to AIMN have a unique insight to truth and report that ‘truth’ without bias.
@ All above. Agreed. The ”death by a thousand cuts” is Uncle Rupert enforcing father Sir Keith Murdoch’s desire to kill off publicly funded ABC news reports in the name of corporate media profits requiring maximum advertiser support. This has been going since the 1932 opening of the OUR ABC.
The recent ABC Board appointments have emphasised that this policy is detrimental to the Australian national interest, and all staff appointments appear to require an apprenticeship with either Murdoch’s News Ltd or the IPA, another Murdoch political manipulating entity. Certainly the ABC political ”commentators” are adept at ”yellow journalism”, choosing language that denigrates anything achievements by the current LABOR government.
As for the individual ”scribblers” gifted a political soap-box to preach neo-LIARBRALISM and FRWNJ policies benefiting anybody EXCEPT Australian voters, they all leave too much to be desired as an impartial objective reporter of political activities.
I cannot understand why any politicians leak to SkyLies because there is only about a 3% audience. However, SkyLies has to be acknowledged when other media follow up, or more usually regurgitate the story.
@ Gerry: Agreed. As a ”Rusted on ABC person” we must keep the ABC and rebuild it free from the insidious influence of the Murdoch Median Manipulation Monopoly, because they claim to be ”entertainers” rather than ”Publications of Public Record” so that they can manipulate the news for the maximum benefit of the FRWNJ COALition parties, including ONLY Nutters.
@ Paul Walter: Very much in agreement with your comment.
@ Stephen Bowler: Naturally AIMN contributors have a unique insight of the media reported ”news”. In many cases they are experts in their field, or widely read, holding encyclopaedic knowledge of world affairs garnered over decades of acute unrestricted bibliomania.
Stephen B,
It is not deliberate “Aunty” bashing. The article is a summary of what people have been saying on social media: you will notice words/phrases such as “feels”, “perception”, “growing sentiment”, “has faced criticism”, “complaints”, “some viewers argue”, “is accused”, “perceived bias”, “recent accusations”, “it suggests”.
PS: I don’t appreciate being told to “grow up”.
Thank you, NEC. It’s good to hear such praise from the grown-ups.
McGilvray’s words fit the ABC and that is sad because we are now suspicious of its veracity.
ps I hope you stay you and vociferous.
NEC…
Yes, there are just a few sites that still do “broadsheet”.
Who will be disadvantaged when another Oil Shock develops?
The Wall st stockbrokers with advanced warming, or the plebs in the outer burbs, never mind the global poor?
Will the ABC warn the public through truth -based journalism or retain the silences the oligarchs seek ’till the burgling is done.
Trump and co, against the already starving kids in the third world?
Once LNP and Labor allowed Rupert to basically take control of the ABC the network was doomed.
I totally agree with Gerry’s comments except I think David Speers is doing well on Insiders.
.
@Stephen Bowler
You say Standard “Aunty” bashing. ‘Grow up,..’
Did you even read the links?
Standard “Aunty” bashing? how do you justify labelling the act of ABC staff, themselves, having reached the point of despair as to write to management and colleagues, outlining numerous clear breaches of the ABC charter and bias, as ‘Standard “Aunty” bashing’? How do you justify smearing the ABC staff themselves or anyone else referring to them, as needing to ‘Grow up’?
How do you justify the evidence presented as ‘Standard “Aunty” bashing’? What is your evidence?
You say of course the ABC reports the same stuff that commercial media does, all media gets its war stories from the same source
I grew up having enormous faith in the ABC to not just report the same stuff that commercial media does, not just get its war stories from the same source, but to make the effort to use a variety of sources, and not just the “expert” opinion of one person whose opinion fits a narrative that suits the commercial media. One of my complaints with the ABC now, as opposed to the ABC of old, is it no longer seems to be making that effort – its coverage of the attack on Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro only echoed the Trump administration rhetoric, its coverage of Israel and the USA’s June attack on Iran predominantly relied on sources from one side and one-sided backgrounding, its coverage of this current attack on Iran by Israel and the USA fails to use reputable or reliable sources that independent media is having no trouble finding.
I believe in “If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not a news service’s job to quote them both. It’s a news services job to look out the window and find out which is true.”
You say Perhaps you will claim.that contribnuter’s to AIMN have a unique insight to truth and report that ‘truth’ without bias.
I have been saying the ABC is biased and on international issues have been pumping out Western propaganda. I see nothing in your post to change that. Unlike your post I do my best to support, justify and provide evidence for my criticism.
It’s easy to label opinions and smear people, will you back up yours with justification, reasoning or even evidence?
Spirited reply from Thommo…
Sad to observe, though RN LNL has improved a bit, but mostly symptoms of Howard, Koch Network and Murdoch, ditto BBC, meddling or their ‘Wrecking Crew’. (Thomas Franks).
Two examples, first RN’s Global Roaming with now ‘Hamish & Gerry’ doing MMM style aka appealing to RW MSM middle aged + audiences by offering no substantive analysis (though both are capable?) with way too much fluff and banter…..
Second is ‘Friends of the ABC’ who have become unapproachable &/or avoiding issues by choosing to withdraw into their own rabbit hole to communicate via email; replicating ABC audience interaction and social media network, now non existent…..
S.Bucking-Fowler sounds like an angel, just fraud, fiction, foolishness, foul and fantasy fumbling. Why do some bother? Add, offer, lead, suggest.
Off topic perhaps but… What’s the ABC take on Coles and Palantir?
No joy on SBS either.
https://www.cyberdaily.au/tech/13286-not-on-our-watch-coles-and-palantir-respond-to-getup-anti-surveillance-campaign
https://newrepublic.com/post/207693/palantir-ceo-karp-disrupting-democratic-power?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_ticker_rss
Mmmm.
@ Herbert
Wow, Coles uses audio as well as video surveillance. I’m going to Coles, check out the avocados (better not press the top anymore) and casually say ‘Albanese’s a liar’, round to the detergent shelves and drop ‘Marles is a liar’ as I walk past, then up the dairy section and slip out ‘Wong is utterly deceitful’.
In that second video Karp is continuing the same pitch Musk, Altman and co came out with earlier – AI is a huge threat if mismanaged, better let us take control – with a Trump-like pitch to, I’d reckon, the MAGA base, that he provides no logic or evidence for making.
Berry good Thommo…hopefully not a lone voice in the AI skeptic wilderness!:(