Is ABC 7.30’s coverage of conflicts biased? We analysed 42 interviews to find out

Comments · 351

• RI

  @RichardBean · 1 day ago (edited) · pinned

  Thanks for this. So much ended up on the cutting room floor even in a long article and video.<br><br>One was a &quot;question&quot; to Chinese Ambassador Xiao Qian. &quot;Should China be ashamed of what happened in Xinjiang?&quot; &quot;Asked&quot; twice in case the listeners didn&apos;t Get The Point. Of course, ally countries never get this kind of statement-cum-question.<br><br>Another was Marandi (a bit more context). Sarah asserted that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. That goes beyond even US intelligence claims and is aligned with Israeli claims.<br><br>The guest asked her to source it and she refused whereupon he remarked &quot;You&apos;re not much of a journalist are you?&quot;. Lots of people complained. Of course, the Ombudsman found &quot;no breach&quot;, incorrectly stating it was a &quot;live&quot; interview and not engaging with accuracy or impartiality issues. <br><br>The word &quot;regime&quot; is used absolutely non-stop at 7.30 and across the ABC, especially for Iran - more than 700 times for Iran in ABC news articles this year. In the Marandi lead-in Sarah said &quot;[he] is a supporter of the Iranian regime&quot; which the ABC transcript incorrectly has as &quot;leadership&quot;. Perhaps that&apos;s what her script said but she was on autopilot.

  39

• MA

  @mandooshkascott7398 · 1 day ago

  Thank you Ette Media. Great show. Haven’t watched 7.30 for a long time due to the formulaic predictable themes depending on the guest being interviewed.

  64

• FE

  @fellowcitizen · 1 day ago

  The hypocrisy of the ABC accusing others of propaganda is STAGGERING.

  62

• ZY

  @zyx5157 · 1 day ago

  I&apos;ve long been critical of Sarah Ferguson - but the important issue is the ABCs coverage in general, and I think you&apos;ve done a fantastic job of proving many salient and observable weaknesses in their willingness to hear from Palestinians and their representatives.<br><br>This is my favourite episode so far!

  97

• JI

  @jimmcfarlane4345 · 1 day ago (edited)

  David Marr’s interrogation of Christopher Hedges, the Pulitzer Price winning ex New York Times Middle Eastern bureau chief, was an utter disgrace. Hedges was trying to talk about the trivialisation of the Palestinian press by the international press whilst Marr questioned his credentials. Marr told Hedges that he should pursue a “balanced” view. Hedges responded by saying that he’s not interested in balance, he’s interested in the truth and that a lie does not cancel a truth. Sarah Ferguson’s attack on professor Marandi was ignorant and unprofessional. He exposed her lack of knowledge and she was left humiliated. The ABC is *ucked. Also we should take notice of the list of people that the ABC doesn’t interview. Prof Jeffery Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Scott Ritter, Larry Wilkerson, Douglas MacGregor, Max Blumenthal, Pepe Escobar the list goes on. Look these people up on Wikipedia they are no idiots.

  72

• KA

  @KarinaArmstrong-x1z · 1 day ago

  Terrific episode Ette. The SF interview with Marandi had virtually the same tone as the RN David Marr interview with author Chris Hedges.

  62

• BE

  @beesplaining1882 · 1 day ago

  I don&apos;t need the ABC to take a side for me like they do. I just want a media company to ask questions to get to the truth. I can make my own mind up when I have the truth.

  57

• NA

  @nazasgar616 · 23 hours ago

  I tuned off the ABC in 2023! Now on Indep media for all my news and analysis. Thank you ette

  23

• TH

  @TheAngeV · 1 day ago

  This is such an excellent episode. It&apos;s exactly why I no longer watch any news on the ABC. I wonder how Sarah Ferguson CAN SLEEP AT NIGHT knowing she is a mouthpiece for the justification of genocide.

  38

• BL

  @bluelines1 · 1 day ago

  Dear Simon,<br><br>Thank you for your email about 7.30’s interview with Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Sharren Heskel on 9 September.<br><br>Your complaint has been received by the ABC’s Ombudsman’s Office. The office is separate to and independent of content making areas within the ABC. Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate complaints about ABC content concerning the ABC&apos;s editorial standards.<br><br>The Ombudsman received seven complaints concerned, variously, that the interview subject should not have been given airtime, and the interviewer did not question Ms Heskel’s statements about the ceasefire negotiations and Israel’s support for aid into Gaza rigorously enough.<br><br>The newsworthy aspect of the interview was the ceasefire negotiations and specifically, in this instance, the US role in the negotiations and Israel’s perspective on this. Due to the normal constraints of available program time and the interest in the immediate practicalities of the ceasefire, the interview followed a focused line of questioning.<br><br>During the interview, Sarah Ferguson practised a standard approach to interviewing which involves putting other points of view to the interviewee. It is Ms Ferguson’s duty to conduct interviews that challenge statements made, and to interject and make reasonable efforts to ensure that the questions that were asked are answered. Reasonable efforts, however, involve making instant decisions about whether to prosecute a point or to let it go and move forward in the interest of striving for a constructive interview.<br><br>We understand that the conflict is a deeply sensitive and complex issue, and we take all feedback seriously. The editorial standards require the ABC to present diverse viewpoints, especially on contentious issues, to help the audience form their own informed opinions. This means including voices from all sides of the conflict. However, presenting different perspectives does not imply endorsement of any particular view. We recognise that the ABC’s coverage may not always meet everyone’s expectations, and some viewers may strongly disagree or be offended by certain views, descriptions, words, or information — or object to their omission — in an individual story among the broad and diverse range of stories presented across the ABC’s output.<br><br>On review, we are satisfied the questions posed by Ms Ferguson were relevant and based strictly on news value, and that Ms Heskel was afforded appropriate opportunity to respond to the questions. The interview was conducted with due impartiality and complied with the ABC’s editorial standards. <br><br>Thank you for giving the ABC the opportunity to respond to your concerns. &nbsp;<br><br>Yours Sincerely,<br>Hugh<br><br><br>Contact type: Complaint<br><br>Subject: 730 Thursday 9th October 2025<br> <br>I estimate that a majority of viewers would have been shocked and disgusted to see 730 provide a platform for a deranged, pathologically dishonest and psychopathic Israeli government minister to rant, unchallenged, for several nauseating minutes.<br><br>If the ABC wishes to invite a rabid, racist advocate of genocidal violence onto our screens the least it can do is conduct a challenging and forceful interview – and not exemplify cowardly acquiescence.<br><br>Tonight was a new low for our national broadcaster. Deeply offensive.

  24

• VA

  @ValerieBall-u8c · 1 day ago

  I personally detest SF. She is a smug, self agrandising has-been. More often than not, she is extremely biased and spews the usual western propaganda. The ABC has become unwatchable &amp; I rarely torture myself viewing anything they produce.

  37

• GL

  @glbale · 23 hours ago

  Has Sarah Ferguson ever asked an Israeli to condemn their illegal occupation?

  27