This one is a good case in point as an example of what AIJAC does not say: 'The screening of the series in Israel caused considerable public controversy, including criticism from then Communications Minister Limor Livnat, for its largely negative focus.
SBS management treated the AIJAC report seriously, ordering an investigation by the news and current affairs department and the policy section.
She proposed that SBS add them to a list of apologies that she drafted for Milan to sign as SBS's official response to AIJAC.
Following this, Martin threatened to resign unless his response to AIJAC was authorised, and Milan caved in.
I eventually received a bundle of documents that confirmed my suspicions: the vast majority of 29 letters of complaint submitted to SBS news and current affairs management about Middle East coverage were from AIJAC's Colin Rubenstein or other AIJAC staff, and all fit a similar pattern: SBS news reports 'lacked fairness and balance' and often contained 'political overtones'.
AIJAC found a handful of factual errors, but the vast majority of complaints related to journalism that challenged Israel's aggression in the occupied territories, supposedly positioned Israel as the aggressor in the conflict, or ignored Israel's consistent 'striving for peace'.
This was primarily the result of intense pressure from Zionist lobbyists at AIJAC and a handful of Liberal and ALP senators.
And indeed the fairness approach to reporting seems to trouble AIJAC, as demonstrated in its 2003 complaint that SBS broadcast 'an overwhelming preponderance of material highlighting, or sympathetic to, anti-Israel viewpoints'.