Press Council adjudication
The Press Council considered whether the Standards of Practice had been breached by publishing a cartoon in Türkiye. Age And Sydney Morning Herald It was titled “Grass roots” on January 7, 2026. The cartoon depicts a group of figures on a strip of grass holding placards and calling for a Royal Commission. The figures above represent a variety of groups, including lawyers, businessmen, sporting figures and Labor figures, with signs reading “Businessmen for the RC”, “Lawyers for the Royal Com”, “Greats of Sport for the RC”, “Labor Has Been for the RC” and “Dogs for the RC”. One figure has a thought bubble above it that says “Don’t talk about the war.” In the background is a figure carrying a megaphone agitating on behalf of the Royal Commission. In the foreground are a number of identifiable political figures, including David Littleproud, Sussan Ley, Jacinta Price, John Howard, Jillian Segal and Rupert Murdoch, carrying grass over their heads as they walk. Separate from this group, on the far right, a figure resembling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is playing drums to the accompaniment of “Boom Boom”.
In response to complaints received, the Council asked publications to comment on whether material breached the Standards of Practice, which requires publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or materially contributing to serious offence, distress or prejudice, or a significant risk to health or safety, unless it is sufficiently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The council said the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon relied on imagery and themes that closely resemble well-established anti-Semitic tropes, depicting Jewish figures as manipulative actors exerting covert influence beneath a supposed “grassroots” movement. The complaint also raised concerns that the cartoon diminished legitimate concerns expressed by those directly affected by the shooting, as well as those from the wider community who have called for a Royal Commission into the attack. Relatedly, the cartoon implies that their reasoning is based not on their concern about the killings, but on their willingness to be manipulated by “Zionists” who march to Netanyahu’s drum.
In response, the publications said the cartoon should be seen in the context of the significant public debate following the terrorist attack on Bondi on 14 December 2025 and the widespread calls for a Royal Commission that followed. The publications said the purpose of the cartoon was to examine the almost immediate politicization of calls for the actual Royal Commission, which became a political attack against Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, and to illustrate the phenomenon of “astroturfing”, where privately funded or politically motivated campaigns are designed to resemble organic grassroots movements. It was stated that the title “Grass roots” was used ironically for this purpose. The publications said the portrayal of Benjamin Netanyahu was based on public statements he made in the hours after the attack, in which Netanyahu condemned Prime Minister Albanese’s recognition of Palestine as “pouring fuel on the antisemitic fire.” They said the cartoon was not intended to evoke anti-Semitic tropes, but rather to comment on the role of domestic and foreign political actors in shaping the domestic debate. The publications acknowledged that some readers found the cartoon thought-provoking, but that many readers, especially the Jewish community, were hurt and disturbed by the cartoon. They said he took immediate action when he heard the seriousness of the community’s distress, issuing significant apologies and several letters from readers on the issue. It was stated that senior editorial leaders were also planning a meeting with members of the Jewish community. Despite his apology, the publications said that the cartoon had been published in good faith on a matter of clear and important public interest and at a time when there was a serious public debate about the Royal Commission, and that the public interest in freedom of expression, including the freedom of cartoonists to comment on important news, was sufficient to justify any offense caused.
Solution
The Council recognizes that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to address serious issues. The Council has therefore given significant latitude to cartoons when assessing whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid serious offence, distress or prejudice. But this latitude is not unlimited, especially when a caricature may reinforce racial, ethnic or religious stereotypes.
The Council accepts comments from publications that the purpose of the cartoon was to comment on the politicization of the Royal Commission calls. The Council also accepts comments that the publications were not intended to cause offense or prejudice. The Council states that the purpose of the cartoon or the message it is trying to convey can be interpreted in different ways. In this context, the Council draws attention to the depiction of political figures carrying the so-called grassroots movement above their heads, while Netanyahu, who is both Jewish and Prime Minister of Israel, stands apart, beating the drum to which political figures march. The Council considers that these images encode the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish people secretly control or manipulate global events, governments, financial systems or the media. The Council considers that these images may cause or contribute to serious distress, distress and prejudice, particularly to those who are Jewish.
While the Council accepts that it is in the public interest to comment on the political motivation of some of those who called for a Royal Commission into the terrorist attack, the Council does not consider it sufficient to justify the serious offense, distress or prejudice caused or contributed to by depicting those who called for a Royal Commission as being manipulated by the Israeli Prime Minister. Accordingly, the Council concluded that the publications had failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or materially contributing to serious offence, distress or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.
The Council welcomes the publications’ issued apologies and their stated intention to meet with Jewish community leaders.
In addition to finding that publications have not taken reasonable steps to comply with the Standards of Practice, the Council notes that this matter highlights the importance for all publications to ensure that their editorial processes are sufficiently robust to minimize the risk of causing unwelcome attack, distress or prejudice. The Council also notes that, in the context of increasing public sensitivities regarding antisemitism and social cohesion, the adequacy of editorial processes must be assessed, taking into account the sensitivity of the subject matter and the potential impact on affected communities.
