The Press Council considered whether the publication of a cartoon violated its standards. age And Sydney Morning Herald Titled “Grass Roots” on January 7, 2026. The cartoon shows a crowd of figures on a grassy lawn, holding placards and demanding a royal commission. The figures above represent various groups including lawyers, entrepreneurs, sports figures, and Labor figures, with the inscriptions “Business People for ARC”, “Lawyers for a Royal Com”, “Sports Great for ARC”, “Labour Has Beans for ARC” and “Dogs for ARC”. One figure wrote the thought bubble “Don’t mention the war.” In the background is a figure with a megaphone protesting for the Royal Commission. In the foreground, there are several recognizable political figures – David Littleproud, Susan Leigh, Jacinta Price, John Howard, Jillian Segal and Rupert Murdoch – marching alongside them, carrying grass on their heads. Separated from the group and to the right, is a figure resembling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is beating a drum with the words “Boom Boom”.
In response to complaints received, the Council asked publications to comment on whether the content violated its standards that require publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing to significant offense, nuisance or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is in the public interest. The council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon relied on images and themes that resembled well-established anti-Semitic tropes, portraying Jewish figures as manipulative actors exerting influence hidden beneath a supposed “grassroots” movement. The complaint also raised concerns that the cartoon downplays the legitimate concerns of those directly affected by the shooting, as well as those in the wider community who have called for a Royal Commission into the shooting. In this regard, the cartoon implies that their argument is not based on their concerns about the assassination, but rather the desire to be manipulated by the “Zionists” marching to Netanyahu’s drum.
In response, the publications said the cartoon should be considered in the context of the significant public debate following the terrorist attack in Bondi on 14 December 2025 and the resulting widespread calls for a Royal Commission. Publications said the cartoon was intended to almost immediately politicize calls for a royal commission, which became a political attack against Prime Minister Anthony Albany and to illustrate the phenomenon of “astroturfing” where privately funded or politically motivated campaigns are designed to resemble grassroots movements. He said the title “Grass roots” was ironically used for this purpose. The publication said the portrayal of Benjamin Netanyahu was based on his public comments in the hours after the attack, in which he condemned Prime Minister Albany’s recognition of Palestine as “fueling the fire of anti-Semitism.” He said the cartoon was not intended to promote antisemitism, but rather to comment on the role of external and internal political actors in shaping domestic debate. The publications acknowledged that while some readers found the cartoon thought-provoking, many readers, particularly members of the Jewish community, were saddened and offended by the cartoon. He said he took immediate action after hearing the seriousness of the community’s suffering, issuing a prominent apology and numerous letters from readers on the matter. It said senior editorial leaders had also scheduled a meeting with members of the Jewish community. Despite its apology, the publications said that the cartoon was published in good faith on a matter of clear and significant public interest and at a time of significant public debate about a Royal Commission, and that the public interest in freedom of expression, including the cartoonist’s freedom to comment on major news events, was sufficient to justify any offence.
The result
The Council recognizes that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and exaggeration to make a point about serious issues. For this reason, the Council has given cartoons significant latitude when considering whether a publication has taken reasonable steps to avoid substantial offense, inconvenience, or prejudice. However, this latitude is not unlimited, particularly where a cartoon may reinforce racial, ethnic or religious stereotypes.
The Council acknowledges the publications’ comments that the cartoon was intended to comment on the politicization of the Royal Commission’s demands. The Council also acknowledges the publications’ comments that they had no intention of causing offense or prejudice. The council notes that the intent of a cartoon or the message it is trying to convey can be interpreted in different ways. In this context, the council noted the depiction of political figures leading a grassroots movement above their heads, while Netanyahu, who is both Jewish and Israeli prime minister, stands apart, marching with drumbeating political figures. The Council believes that this image encodes anti-Semitism in which the Jewish people covertly control or manipulate world events, governments, financial systems or the media. The Council considers that such depictions may cause or contribute to substantial offence, distress and prejudice, particularly to Jews.
While the Council recognizes the public interest in commenting on the political motivations of some for calling a Royal Commission into a terrorist attack, the Council does not consider that it was sufficient to justify calling for a Royal Commission because of the guilt, distress or prejudice or manipulation by the Israeli Prime Minister of those who contributed to it. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publications have failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or materially contributing to the violation of general rule 6.
The council welcomes the publications’ published apology and their stated intention to meet with Jewish community leaders.
The Council notes that, in addition to finding that publications failed to take reasonable steps to comply with its standards, this case highlights the importance for all publications to ensure that their editorial processes are robust enough to minimize the unintended risk of causing offence, distress or prejudice. The Council also noted that, in the context of heightened community sensitivity to anti-Semitism and social cohesion, the appropriateness of editorial action should be assessed in light of the sensitivity of the subject matter and the potential impact on affected communities.
