BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A news report on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report on 20 November 1998 at about 7.30am stated: "In Israel more land is to be handed over to the Palestinians".

Ms Zarifeh, on behalf of the Wellington Palestine Group, complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the report was inaccurate. She pointed out that the land in question was not in Israel, but was illegally occupied by Israel. It was wrong, she continued, to convey the impression that Israel was somehow being generous in giving the land away. The Group had complained about such inferences in reporting on a number of occasions in the past, she noted, and it was unfortunate that RNZ had "resumed the practice of mislabelling the boundaries of the Middle East."

RNZ responded that the words "In Israel…" were spoken by way of introduction to the item and that the emphasis was on the fact that a decision about the land had been made by the Israeli Cabinet. It noted that the programme did not make any comment as to the whereabouts of the land in question and declined to uphold the complaint.

Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, the Wellington Palestine Group referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

The introduction to an item on Morning Report broadcast on 20 November 1998 at about 7.30am stated "In Israel more land is to be handed over to Palestinians."

Ms Helen Zarifeh, on behalf of the Wellington Palestine Group complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the report was inaccurate. The Group pointed out that the land in question was not in Israel but was land illegally occupied by Israel. The Group, she wrote, resented what it saw as the implication that Israel was somehow being generous in giving away something which belonged to it. That impression, the Group contended, conveyed the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation in a much more negative light.

The Group noted that it had complained about similar matters a number of times in the past. It considered it unfortunate that RNZ had "resumed the practice of mislabelling the boundaries of the Middle East."

In its response, RNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standard R1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. That standard requires broadcasters:

R1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs programmes.

RNZ noted that the wording of the sentence was as follows:

"In Israel"  followed by a pause, and then the words "more land is to be handed over to the Palestinians. The Israeli Cabinet has accepted that the Palestinians have met their part of the Wye accord, so there’s movement there…"

RNZ said it considered the words "In Israel" were spoken by way of introduction to the item, separating it from the previous item. It also considered that the selective emphasis given to the sentence clearly indicated that the phrase was referring to the fact that in Israel, a decision had been made by the Israeli Cabinet. It did not refer to the location or ownership of the land, nor did it comment as to the whereabouts of the land. RNZ also noted:

…although not relevant to this particular programme, the words "In Israel" may refer not just to the physical boundaries of Israel, but to the extent of Israeli jurisdiction in that part of the world which in this case would have included the land in question.

RNZ pointed out that the main part of the programme to which this trailer referred was broadcast at approximately 7.45am and formed part of the coverage of the peace process agreement. This later item provided more in-depth coverage, it added.

RNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

The Group referred the complaint to the Authority, describing RNZ’s response as "quite unsatisfactory." In particular it objected to what it described as RNZ’s new policy of referring to territory occupied by Israel as being in Israel.

In the Group’s view, even if the item had begun with the words "In Israel", the following script should have made it clear that the land was occupied by Israel and was not part of it.

Finally the Group observed that the Israeli Cabinet would have met in West Jerusalem, which is not part of Israel in the UN Partition Resolution.

In RNZ’s report to the Authority, it denied that it had a new policy of any sort relating to the matter. It wrote:

The point we made in our previous letter was that the occupation of territory implies the extension of jurisdiction of various sorts to that territory and that the use of the name of a state to indicate this may be acceptable in some cases, provided the meaning is clear. This was a comment made in passing and is not the point on which our decision turns in this case.

To the Group’s point that the meaning could have been made clear by using different wording, RNZ responded that even if it conceded that point, it did not establish there was an inaccuracy. It repeated that the meaning of the item was clear: In Israel, the Cabinet took a certain action.

RNZ suggested that the Group would have liked it to state that the land was occupied by Israel and was not a part of it. It wrote:

Radio New Zealand repeats its oft-stated position that the requirement to be accurate does not mean that we should, whenever certain nouns are used, have to record the views of one party to an argument. We do not, for example, do this in the New Zealand context. We, and other media, regularly record discussions over the return of land illegally seized from Maori without repeating a statement about the illegal seizure every time the land in question is mentioned.

With respect to the location of the Parliament, RNZ said it would be surprised if the Authority agreed with the Group’s interpretation of the partition resolution. In any case, it noted, it did not report on the exact location of the Cabinet meeting.

As a general comment, RNZ concluded by noting that it reported hundreds of stories about Israel, and that it attempted to keep its language exact and accurate. In its view, the "painstaking exactitude" expected by the Group "would be more appropriate for drafting legislation or international treaties than for broadcasting."

In its final comment on the complaint, and in response to RNZ’s observations, the Group suggested that there would have been no issue had the item simply stated "The Israeli cabinet is to hand more land over to the Palestinians".

The Group also expressed its concern that the Authority, as evidenced in an earlier complaint, appeared to question the appropriateness of its complaints on this issue when it described them as minor transgressions. The Group maintained that it was not unreasonable to require accuracy when dealing with geographical locations in the region. In its view, the lack of precision on the part of the media reflected a deeper bias of New Zealand journalists in favour of the Israelis.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority notes first that the item complained about consisted of an abbreviated headline which referred to an upcoming item. Of necessity it was brief, and did not provide a full explanation of this aspect of the peace agreement.

While the Authority acknowledges that possibly the item was open to the interpretation put on it by the Wellington Palestine Group, it does not agree that that was the only or most likely interpretation of it. In addition, it notes, any ambiguity was resolved by the full item which was broadcast subsequently. It accepts RNZ’s point that the words "In Israel" provided the cue to listeners that the subject had changed to an event with which the Israeli cabinet had been closely involved. It does not agree that there was an inference to be drawn that suggested the land involved was Israel’s and that it was somehow being generous in giving it away.

Accordingly, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint that the item breached standard R1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
19 March 1999

Appendix

The Authority received and considered the following correspondence when it determined this complaint:

Wellington Palestine Group’s Complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd – 20 November 1998

RNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 15 December 1998

Wellington Palestine Group’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority –
24 December 1998

RNZ’s Response to the Authority – 10 February 1999

Wellington Palestine Group’s Final Comment – 23 February 1999