Sharri Markson’s Netanyahu Interview Sparks Media Firestorm
Last week, Sky News Australia landed what was billed as a major world exclusive – an interview between Walkley Award-winning journalist Sharri Markson and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It ran for just 16 minutes, but those minutes have stirred up an enormous debate in the media world.
The timing could not have been more charged. Australia’s relationship with Israel has been strained after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese backed formal recognition of a Palestinian state. Against that backdrop, Markson broke the story of a sharply worded letter Netanyahu had sent to Albanese, as well as his posts accusing the Australian leader of weakness. So when she sat down with Netanyahu, she opened with the blunt question: Why do you believe history will remember him as weak? Netanyahu didn’t hold back, calling Albanese’s record “forever tarnished” and linking his position to “appeasement” reminiscent of Europe in the 1930s.
Also Read:- Verónica Echegui, a Bright Star Gone Too Soon
- David Attenborough’s Living Room Shows Timeless Design Over Trends
Throughout the interview, Markson pressed on points that mirrored Netanyahu’s own criticisms of the Albanese government. She asked about antisemitism in Australia, rumours of a ceasefire, and even prefaced allegations of genocide and starvation in Gaza by labelling them “libels” and “propaganda.” Netanyahu, unsurprisingly, was given room to strongly reject those claims. The exchange was peppered with moments where Markson nodded in agreement, even saying “absolutely” as Netanyahu warned of rising radicalism.
But this is where the backlash began. Veteran journalists across Australia called the interview “soft” and “sycophantic.” Michael Gawenda, former editor of The Age , said there wasn’t a single challenging question. Ray Martin, one of the country’s most recognisable broadcasters, argued it failed “Journalism 101” and was a wasted opportunity. Helen Dalley, a former Sky News anchor herself, said it was disappointing not to see Netanyahu held to account. Kerry O’Brien was even blunter, suggesting Markson might as well have handed Netanyahu a microphone and let him talk uninterrupted.
What stung critics most was what wasn’t asked. There was no mention of the massive civilian toll in Gaza beyond Netanyahu’s framing. Nor were questions raised about the backlash from Jewish community leaders in Australia, who had publicly criticised Netanyahu’s inflammatory comments about Albanese just a day earlier. By contrast, in a similar Fox News interview, Netanyahu was challenged directly about accusations of killing civilians and about whether independent journalists would be allowed into Gaza.
Sharri Markson, for her part, defended the approach. She said viewers deserved to hear Netanyahu’s perspective unfiltered and claimed she’d been inundated with praise from prominent editors. Sky News, too, struck back, accusing the ABC of long-running anti-Israel bias and dismissing Media Watch’s critique as sour grapes over not landing the interview themselves.
In the end, there’s no denying the scoop was significant. Netanyahu remains one of the most consequential and controversial figures on the world stage. But what Australia got was not a probing interrogation—it was a platform for Netanyahu’s message, with little pushback. Whether that was a journalistic failure or a deliberate editorial choice depends on who you ask. What is clear is that this interview, and the storm around it, has reopened questions about how journalism should deal with powerful leaders during times of war.
Read More:
0 Comments