BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Jerusalem as a tourist destination was reviewed in the programme Air New Zealand

Holiday broadcast by Television One at 6.30pm on Saturday 4 June.

The spokesperson for the Palestine Human Rights Campaign (Mr Wakim) complained

to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item breached the

broadcasting standards by omitting any reference to Islam and by not recording the

city's correct legal status.

Acknowledging that the item which stressed the city's religious importance was

seriously flawed by omitting any reference to Islam, TVNZ upheld that aspect of the

complaint and said the programme's producer had been reminded of the obligations

under the standards. As the item referred to the city's international status and dealt

with tourism rather than current affairs, TVNZ declined to uphold the other aspect of

the complaint. Dissatisfied with the decision not to uphold one aspect and that the

action on the aspect upheld did not involve a public apology, Mr Wakim on the

Campaign's behalf referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, a majority of the Authority declined to uphold the aspect

of the referral which related to the status of Jerusalem and the Authority unanimously

declined to uphold the aspect concerning the action taken.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

Jerusalem as a holiday destination was covered in an item on Air New Zealand

Holiday. The spokesperson for the Palestine Human Rights Campaign (Mr David

Wakim) complained to TVNZ, first, that the item omitted any Muslim or Palestinian

content, and secondly, did not explain the legal status of Jerusalem. In particular, it

did not point out that East Jerusalem, under United Nations resolutions, was part of

the occupied territories.

TVNZ considered the complaint under standards G1 and G6 of the Television Codes

of Broadcasting Practice. They require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

As for the first aspect of the complaint, TVNZ noted that the broadcast had placed

emphasis on the importance of Jerusalem as a religious centre. However, by referring

only to Christianity and Judaism and all but ignoring Islam, "the item was seriously

flawed". It upheld that omission as a breach of both standards G1 and G6.

TVNZ apologised for the deficiencies which it described as serious and, pointing out

that it had gone to considerable lengths to be accurate and fair in its news reporting of

the Middle East, said that the complaint was a reminder to producers of all

programmes which referred to the Middle East of the need for accuracy.

With regard to the second aspect of the complaint - the legal status of Jerusalem -

TVNZ explained that the item was a tourist one, not a current affairs one, and had

portrayed Jerusalem as an international city. It declined to uphold this aspect of the

complaint.

On the Campaign's behalf, Mr Wakim referred both aspects to the Authority. With

regard to the aspect upheld, he argued that TVNZ should have broadcast a public

correction as "commensurate redress". He suggested an item in the news.

As for the status of Jerusalem, Mr Wakim pointed out that it was accepted

internationally that East Jerusalem was occupied Palestinian territory. He maintained

that TVNZ should be required to report the matter correctly.

In its report to the Authority, TVNZ said that it believed that a correction broadcast

as a news item would mislead viewers and that a correction in Air New Zealand

Holiday was impracticable. It claimed that it would involve sending a crew to

Jerusalem to revisit a tourist destination already covered by an Australian team for the

programme. TVNZ explained:

We would emphasise that a decision to uphold a complaint made either by

TVNZ's Complaints Committee, or by the Broadcasting Standards Authority, is

not an event that is taken lightly by broadcasters – all of whom are professionals

and guard jealously their reputations in this area. A finding by one's peers is a

salutary experience and we believe will in this case have the desired result.

TVNZ also insisted that as the item had not referred to Israel's claim to East

Jerusalem, it had been unnecessary to detail the city's status.

The Authority dealt first with the complaint that TVNZ's action, having upheld the

complaint about omitting any reference to Islam, should have included a correction

broadcast during a news item. Given the importance the item had placed on the

religious importance of Jerusalem, the Authority was surprised at the minimal

reference to Islam. It concurred with TVNZ that it had involved a breach of standards

G1 and G6. However, it also was in agreement with TVNZ that it would be

inappropriate to broadcast a correction as a news item. While somewhat sceptical

about TVNZ's claim that it would be necessary to send a crew to Jerusalem to publish

a correction when a simple statement at the beginning of the programme would suffice,

the Authority acknowledged that the Complaints Committee's finding would be a

salutary experience for the producer of a programme of this nature and, in this case, a

sufficient sanction.

The Authority was divided as to whether the omission of any reference to Jerusalem's

legal status – the second matter referred to the Authority – amounted to a breach of the

standards.

The majority accepted TVNZ's argument that reference to the city's legal status was

unnecessary given the nature of the item. The broadcast had dealt with Jerusalem as a

tourist destination and, in doing so, had highlighted a number of the religious aspects

of the city. As a holiday programme the majority did not believe that the city's legal

status was relevant.

The minority disagreed. Emphasising that Jerusalem politically was two distinct

entities, it argued that not to explain this point created the impression – which all the

interested parties would dispute – that the legal status of Jerusalem was not a matter

of importance. The minority believed that a description of the legal status of the city

was an essential element in any programme which discussed Jerusalem. It drew an

analogy with Berlin where, until the wall came down, a discussion of Berlin as a

tourist centre could not avoid some comment as to the city's divided status.

On the basis that the primary importance of Jerusalem as a tourist centre was religious

and noting that the broadcast was a holiday style programme, not political (unlike

Berlin), the majority decided not to uphold the complaint which alleged that the

programme breached the standards by not referring to the city's legal status.

For the reasons given above, the majority declines to uphold the complaint that

the omission of any reference to Jerusalem's legal status on Air New Zealand

Holiday broadcast by Television New Zealand Limited on 4 June 1994, breached

standards G1 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The Authority unanimously declines to uphold the complaint that the action

taken by Television New Zealand Ltd, having upheld the complaint that part of

the same broadcast breached standards G1 and G6 of the Code, was insufficient.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
24 November 1994

Appendix

Palestine Human Rights Campaign's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd

- 11 June 1994

Mr David Wakim, spokesperson for the Palestine Human Rights Campaign,

complained to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item on Air New Zealand

Holiday broadcast on Television One at 6.30pm on 4 June.

The item had dealt with Jerusalem but, Mr Wakim wrote, it omitted any Muslim or

Palestinian content. Explaining that Israel had legal jurisdiction over West Jerusalem

but that East Jerusalem was part of the occupied territories, Mr Wakim said that the

presentation of only the Israeli side was naive and opened TVNZ up to claims of

deliberate bias and political manipulation.

A public apology or some form of correction was requested.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 2 August 1994

TVNZ said that it had assessed the complaint under standards G1 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice which require, respectively, factual accuracy

and balance.

Noting that Jerusalem was a worthy tourist destination and an important religious

centre, TVNZ acknowledged that the item was "seriously flawed" by linking

Christianity and Judaism with Jerusalem while virtually ignoring Islam. That

omission, it continued, amounted to a breach of standards G1 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

However, as the item dealt with tourism rather than current affairs, TVNZ declined to

uphold the complaint that the item had not explained the city's legal status.

TVNZ advised that the programme's producer had been reminded of the obligations

under the broadcasting standards and reported:

It should be said that TVNZ has gone to some lengths to ensure that it is

accurate and fair in its reporting of Middle Eastern affairs in a news and current

affairs setting. It was a surprise to find the problem arising in a travel series,

normally free of any political or religious controversy. It is a timely reminder

that producers of all programmes (whatever their nature) should be sensitive to

areas of information to which more than one discourse may accurately pertain.

TVNZ apologises for the deficiencies in the item and thanks you for drawing

them to its attention.

The Campaign's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 20 August

1994

Pleased with TVNZ's decision on the aspect upheld but dissatisfied with the action

taken and, in addition, dissatisfied on the aspect not upheld, Mr Wakim referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

Pointing out that TVNZ's referral to East Jerusalem as part of Israel had been

challenged for more than ten years, Mr Wakim argued that TVNZ should have upheld

the aspect about the current description of East Jerusalem and have broadcast a public

correction. With regard to the aspect upheld - the omission of any reference to Islam -

as the Islamic community should see the redress, he wrote:

We would like a more public correction. eg

(a) A press report - paid by TVNZ or as a news item.

(b) A 60 second item about the issue on the evening and late night news.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 14 October 1994

Apologising for the delay in its response, TVNZ first dealt with the complaint about

the action taken on the aspect upheld. It began:

While we understand Mr Wakim's anguish, our concern in these matters must be

to take all steps to reduce the likelihood of a repetition.

Steps, it continued, had been taken to ensure that the deficiencies - acknowledged as

serious - did not recur. An apology and correction on a news programme would

mislead viewers and:

A correction within "Air New Zealand Holiday" which would make any sense

to disinterested viewers also seemed impracticable - short of despatching a New

Zealand crew to Jerusalem to revisit a tourist destination already covered by the

Australian team.

TVNZ added:

We would emphasise that a decision to uphold a complaint made either by

TVNZ's Complaints Committee, or by the Broadcasting Standards Authority,

is not an event that is taken lightly by broadcasters - all of whom are

professionals and guard jealously their reputations in this area. A finding of

fault by one's peers is a salutary experience and we believe will in this case have

the desired result.

On the aspect of the complaint not upheld, TVNZ repeated the point that the item

did not refer to Israel's claim to East Jerusalem and thus there was no need to record

the city's legal status. It concluded:

For the record, when reference is made to the legal status of East Jerusalem,

TVNZ follows the practice of most of the world's broadcasters in describing it

as part of the Occupied Territories.

The Campaign's Final Comment - 26 October 1994

In his reply to TVNZ's comment, Mr Wakim on the Campaign's behalf maintained

that TVNZ had acknowledged the seriousness of the complaint. He said that a correct

view had to be given in all programmes and insisted that an apology during the news

was appropriate. If no penalty was imposed, he stated, mistakes would continue to

happen.

Specifically, Mr Wakim wrote in relation to the status of Jerusalem:

Here the issue of politics and travel come to the fore. The programme left the

impression though not stated, that Jerusalem was Israeli. We feel that a

direction be given that when referring to Jerusalem the fact that West

Jerusalem is Israeli and East Jerusalem is Palestinian is not confused or

overlooked,

TVNZ's apology for the delay in its response was accepted but the hope was

expressed that that would not effect the final outcome of the complaint.