The Press Council con­sidered whether its Standards of Practice were breached by the pub­lic­a­tion of a cartoon in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on 7 January 2026 captioned “Grass roots”. The cartoon depicts a crowd of figures above a strip of grass, holding placards and calling for a Royal Com­mis­sion. The figures above represent various groups including lawyers, business people, sports iden­tit­ies, and Labor figures, with signs reading “Business People for RC”, “Lawyers for a Royal Com”, “Sports Greats for a RC”, “Labor Has Beens for RC” and “Dogs for a RC”. One figure has a thought bubble reading “Don’t mention the war.” In the back­ground there is a figure carrying a megaphone agitating for a Royal Com­mis­sion. In the fore­ground, are a number of iden­ti­fi­able political figures – David Little­proud, Sussan Ley, Jacinta Price, John Howard, Jillian Segal and Rupert Murdoch – who are carrying the grass above their heads as they march along. Separate from this group and to the far right, is a figure resem­bling the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, beating a drum accom­pan­ied by the words “Boom Boom”.

In response to com­plaints received, the Council asked the pub­lic­a­tions to comment on whether the material breached its Standards of Practice which requires the pub­lic­a­tions to take reas­on­able steps to avoid causing or con­trib­ut­ing mater­i­ally to sub­stan­tial offence, distress or prejudice, or a sub­stan­tial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is suf­fi­ciently in the public interest (General Principle 6). The Council noted that the complaint raised concerns that the cartoon relies on imagery and themes that closely resemble well-estab­lished antisemitic tropes, por­tray­ing Jewish figures as manip­u­lat­ive actors exerting hidden influence beneath a supposed “grass­roots” movement. The complaint also raised concerns the cartoon dimin­ishes the legit­im­ate concerns expressed by those who have been directly affected by the shooting as well as those from the broader community who have called for a Royal Com­mis­sion into the shooting. In relation to this, the cartoon implies that their reasoning is not pre­dic­ated on their concerns with the murders, but a will­ing­ness to be manip­u­lated by “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 at Bondi on 14 December 2025 and the sub­sequent wide­spread calls for a Royal Com­mis­sion. The pub­lic­a­tions said the cartoon’s intention was to scru­tin­ise the almost immediate politi­cisa­tion of the genuine calls for a 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 said the title “Grass roots” was used iron­ic­ally for this purpose. The pub­lic­a­tions said the depiction of Benjamin Netanyahu was premised on his public comments in the hours after the attack, in which he condemned Prime Minister Albanese’s recog­ni­tion of Palestine as having “poured fuel on the antisemitic fire.” They said the cartoon was not intended to invoke antisemitic tropes but rather to comment on the role of external and internal political actors in shaping the domestic debate. The pub­lic­a­tions acknow­ledged that while some readers found the cartoon thought provoking, many readers, par­tic­u­larly members of the Jewish community, were hurt and offended by the cartoon. They said that upon hearing the gravity of the community’s distress it took prompt action, pub­lish­ing prominent apologies and a range of reader letters on the matter. It said senior editorial leaders had also scheduled a meeting with members of the Jewish community. Not­with­stand­ing its apology, the pub­lic­a­tions said 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 freedom of car­toon­ists to comment on major news events, was suf­fi­cient to justify any offence caused.

Con­clu­sion
The Council recog­nises that cartoons are expres­sions of opinion that often use exag­ger­a­tion and absurdity to make a point on serious issues. For this reason, the Council has given sig­ni­fic­ant latitude to cartoons when con­sid­er­ing whether a pub­lic­a­tion has taken reas­on­able steps to avoid sub­stan­tial offence, distress, or prejudice. However, that latitude is not unlimited, par­tic­u­larly where a cartoon can reinforce racial, ethnic or religious ste­reo­types.

The Council acknow­ledges the pub­lic­a­tions’ comments that the cartoon’s intention was to comment on the politi­cisa­tion of the calls for a Royal Com­mis­sion. The Council also acknow­ledges the pub­lic­a­tions’ comments that there was no intention to cause offence or prejudice. The Council notes that the intention of the cartoon or the message it is attempt­ing to convey may be inter­preted in different ways. In this context, the Council notes the depiction of political figures carrying the purported grass­roots movement above their heads, while Netanyahu, who is both Jewish and the Israeli Prime Minister, stands apart, beating the drum to which the political figures march. The Council considers this imagery encodes the antisemitic trope that Jewish people secretly control or manip­u­late global events, gov­ern­ments, financial systems, or the media. The Council considers this imagery was likely to cause or con­trib­ute to sub­stan­tial offence, distress and prejudice par­tic­u­larly to those who are Jewish.

While the Council recog­nises the public interest in com­ment­ing on the political motiv­a­tion of some calling for the Royal Com­mis­sion into the terrorist attack, the Council does not consider it was suf­fi­cient to justify the sub­stan­tial offence, distress or prejudice caused or con­trib­uted to, in depicting those calling for a Royal Com­mis­sion as being manip­u­lated by the Israeli Prime Minister. Accord­ingly, the Council concludes that the pub­lic­a­tions failed to take reas­on­able steps to avoid causing or con­trib­ut­ing mater­i­ally to sub­stan­tial offence, distress or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.

The Council welcomes the pub­lic­a­tions’ published apologies and their stated intention to meet with Jewish community leaders.

The Council notes that, apart from finding that the pub­lic­a­tions failed to take reas­on­able steps to comply with its Standards of Practice, this matter under­scores the import­ance for all pub­lic­a­tions of ensuring their editorial processes are suf­fi­ciently robust to minimise the unin­ten­ded risk of causing offence, distress or prejudice. The Council also notes that, in the context of heightened community sens­it­iv­it­ies con­cern­ing antisemitism and social cohesion, the adequacy of editorial processes should be assessed by reference to the sens­it­iv­ity of the subject matter and the potential impact on affected com­munit­ies.