In a recent article for News Corp Chris Kenny published a piece attacking the ABC’s coverage of Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza. But Kenny’s piece failed the basic test of journalism 101. It was advocacy dressed up as journalism. 

The centrepiece of the article was a 58-page submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism by ‘four anonymous Victorians.’ Kenny treated this document as authoritative and compelling without any independent verification. What methodology did the submission use? How did it select its examples of ABC bias? How was the submission’s ‘sentiment analysis’ of the ABC’s reporting conducted and to what academic standard?

And who were the authors of the submission? What are their qualifications and do they have any vested interests? We don’t know.

Citing anonymous advocacy as though it is established fact is not journalism — it is amplification.

The article’s central claim – that the ABC’s coverage “fuelled antisemitism” – was asserted rather than demonstrated. This inflammatory claim was not supported by any evidence or rigorous assessment. No mechanism was established and no alternative explanations were given for the rise in antisemitism in Australia and across the world. It’s a serious disservice to those who want to understand why antisemitism has increased and use that understanding to help find solutions.

Quite rightly Chris Kenny earned a sharp rebuke from ABC Chair, Kim Williams.

“Reporting that is highly charged and inflammatory, or lacking in evidence is divisive, undermines community cohesion and does not contribute to an informed or reasoned public debate,” “This is especially important when dealing with the recent sensitivities.” 

Kim Williams

The article repeatedly implied that because the ABC reported Hamas-sourced casualty figures, it was “amplifying Hamas propaganda.” But reporting figures from a governing authority in a conflict zone,  while acknowledging the source, is standard international journalism practice. Yes, sources should be attributed, but conflating routine sourcing with deliberate propaganda is a serious overreach. And we note that Israel refused to allow journalists into Gaza so they could conduct their own independent investigations.

Kenny missed crucial context

For more than 930 days, Israel has barred foreign reporters from independently entering Gaza — and that ban remains in place despite a ceasefire. The only access Israel has provided for foreign media has been under embedded conditions with the Israeli military, which has been sporadic and has favoured Israeli journalists. These military-escorted trips only last a few hours, follow itineraries set by the military, and journalists are not permitted to freely engage with Palestinians. Military censorship laws mean that military personnel review material before publication.  

As recently as late April, the leaders of major media companies around the world – including the Associated Press, BBC, CNN and Reuters – called on Israel’s government to lift the ban.

One of Kenny’s implicit assumptions in criticising the ABC’s Gaza coverage was that reporters had reasonable ability to independently verify conditions on the ground. But the responsibility for covering the war has fallen almost entirely on Palestinian journalists, who have worked under horrific conditions to bring the news to the world. That context was entirely absent from Kenny’s article.

The Gaza war is the deadliest conflict for journalists ever recorded. At least 263 journalists and media workers have been killed across Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Israel, and Iran since the war began on October 7, 2023. The Committee to Protect Journalists has described Israel’s disregard for the lives of journalists — and for the international laws designed to protect them — as unparalleled.

Israel has simultaneously banned independent foreign journalists from entering Gaza while killing many of the Palestinian journalists who are able to report from inside.

This is the story that needs to be told. But Chris Kenny used the information gap and reliance on Palestinian sources as grounds to dismiss or discredit the coverage that has emerged.

Kenny’s piece concludes by expressing hope that the Royal Commissioner will call the anonymous submission’s authors as witnesses – making clear that his article is an advocacy piece, rather than independent analysis.

Chris Kenny’s latest hit job used the Royal Commission into Antisemitism as a vehicle to attack the national broadcaster. Using such an important issue in this way is a new low.