The Australian Press Council has found The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald breached its Standards of Practice by publishing a cartoon on 7 January 2026 that encoded antisemitic tropes, ruling the publications failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing substantial offence, distress, and prejudice.
Mediaweek has chosen not to republish the cartoon.
The cartoon, by cartoonist Cathy Wilcox and captioned “Grass roots,” depicted a crowd of figures – including lawyers, business people, sports identities, and Labor figures – carrying placards and calling for a Royal Commission.
In the foreground, identifiable political figures, including David Littleproud, Sussan Ley, Jacinta Price, John Howard, Jillian Segal, and Rupert Murdoch, were shown carrying grass above their heads as they marched.
Separate from the group, a figure resembling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu beat a drum, accompanied by the words “Boom Boom.”
The Nine apology
Nine issued a formal apology for the cartoon in January, acknowledging the distress it caused members of the Jewish community while defending the role of editorial independence and free expression across its mastheads.
“We have heard their distress, and for this pain, we sincerely apologise,” Nine said in a statement at the time.
Nine said Wilcox’s intention was to “interrogate” what it characterised as the immediate politicisation of the Bondi attack, not to cause harm to the Jewish community. It pointed specifically to her depiction of Netanyahu, which it said was based on his public condemnation of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese following the attack.
“Many of our readers found the cartoon thought-provoking,” the statement said. “It is undeniable, however, that many others in the community, particularly Jews, were deeply hurt and offended by it.”
The council’s finding
The Press Council found the imagery encoded the antisemitic trope that Jewish people secretly control or manipulate global events, governments, financial systems, or the media – and that it was likely to cause or contribute to substantial offence, distress, and prejudice, particularly to Jewish readers.
“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,” the Council said in its determination.
The ruling was made under General Principle 6 of the council’s Standards of Practice, which requires publications to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or materially contributing to substantial offence, distress, or prejudice, or to a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest.
Latitude – but not unlimited
The council acknowledged that cartoons are expressions of opinion that often use exaggeration and absurdity to make a point about serious issues, and said it had historically afforded cartoons significant latitude in such assessments.
However, it noted that latitude is not unlimited, particularly where a cartoon can reinforce racial, ethnic, or religious stereotypes.
The council welcomed the publications’ published apologies and their stated intention to meet with Jewish community leaders.
It also used the determination to underscore a broader editorial warning: “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 said, adding that editorial processes should be assessed by reference to “the sensitivity of the subject matter and the potential impact on affected communities” – particularly in a context of heightened community sensitivities concerning antisemitism and social cohesion.