BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The majority of the Authority has upheld a complaint that a segment on 1News Tonight reporting regarding an Israeli strike on Iran breached the accuracy standard. The complainant alleged the broadcast was misleading as the use of ‘unprecedented’ to describe a prior Iranian strike implied the Iranian strike was unprovoked, and this was compounded by the omission of reference to an earlier Israeli strike on an Iranian consulate building in Syria. The majority agreed the broadcast created a misleading impression of Iran’s actions through use of the term ‘unprecedented’ to describe its strike on Israel, inclusion of comments suggesting Israel’s strike to be a proportionate response and due to comments of the Iranian Foreign Minister being edited in a way rendering them unclear. The minority view was that viewers of the broadcast were likely to be aware of the prior context for Iran’s strike, and that the broadcast could not be interpreted in the manner alleged given the comments included from the Iranian Foreign Minister and the broadcast’s focus on the risks introduced by ‘tit for tat’ strikes in the Middle East. The Authority unanimously held that the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards either did not apply or were not breached.

Upheld by Majority: Accuracy

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness

No Order

Background

[1]  On 1 April 2024 Israel carried out a missile strike on an Iranian consulate building in Damascus, Syria. The strike killed at least 16 people, including multiple civilians.¹

[2]  Iranian leaders described the strike as having ‘violated all diplomatic norms and international treaties’ and signalled an intention to respond.² On 13 April 2024, Iran launched a missile strike attack on Israel, much of which was intercepted by Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defence technology.³

[3]  On 19 April 2024 Israel launched air strikes on the Iranian province of Isfahan, which is in central Iran. Isfahan also hosts Iranian nuclear facilities, a drone manufacturing facility and a major airbase.⁴

The broadcast

[4]  A segment broadcast on 1News Tonight on 19 April 2024 discussed the Israeli missile strike that day in Iran and fears that tensions in the region could escalate further. The host introduced the segment as follows:

Jenny Suo:                Just days after Iran launched an unprecedented attack on Israel, tonight, a retaliation; Israel reportedly carrying out a missile strike with growing fears the situation could become a dangerous tit for tat and spiral out of control.

[5]  The segment also included comments as follows:

Elizabeth Neuman (US Department of Homeland Security): There’s a well-known understood approach in the Middle East that you… you have to respond to force with force.

…

Malcolm Davis (Australian Strategic Policy Institute): If they [Iran] retaliate against this very limited attack, then Israel will launch a much more forceful retaliation.

…

Reporter:                    Hours before Israel’s retaliation, Iran’s Foreign Minister issued this warning:

Hossein Amir-Abdollahian (Iran Foreign Minister): The Israeli regime embarks on adventurism again and takes action against the interests of Iran, the next response from us will be immediate and at a maximum level.

…

Reporter:                    The US is denying greenlighting Israel’s operation. The question is where to from here for the Middle East, a region the United Nations Secretary General warned today is on the precipice and one miscalculation could lead to the unthinkable.  

CNN Analyst:             We could be in for, you know, a tit for tat that could rapidly get out of control. So, this is a, you know, a pretty serious turning point.

António Guterres (United Nations Secretary General): The moment of maximum peril must be a time for maximum restraint.

[6]  The segment also included clips of comments about the impacts of Israel’s strike in Iran from:

• a presenter from the Iranian state broadcaster
• Gisoo Misha Ahmadi, a reporter from Iran Press TV.

The complaint

[7]  Rami Al-Jiab complained that the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis that the way the broadcast depicted the conflict between Israel and Iran minimised Israel’s role in the conflict and implied that Iran attacked Israel without any provocation. They said:

• The segment described Iran’s attack as ‘unprecedented’ and ‘completely [removed] from the narrative that Israel started the escalation by attacking the [Iranian] consulate in Syria earlier which was also unprecedented as Israel never attacked an Iranian consulate before.’
• The story was unfair and discriminatory to Iranians living in New Zealand as it ‘paints a bad picture of them based on clear misinformation.’
• The depiction of Iran in the segment ‘reinforces stereotypes of Muslims and Middle Easterners to be violent and start wars.’

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  TVNZ did not uphold Al-Jiab’s complaint for the following reasons:

• The focus of the segment was the exchange of retaliatory strikes between Israel and Iran, and the earlier Israeli strike on Damascus was not a ‘necessary inclusion in order for viewers to understand the implications of these later retaliatory strikes’.
• ‘The word ‘unprecedented’ was used to describe the nature of Iran’s prior attack on Israel. This description was widely used by media outlets and does not imply that this Iranian attack was unprovoked. It was, for example described by the BBC as “widely anticipated”’.⁵
• ‘Recent conflicts in the Middle East, including the attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria, have been extensively covered by 1News and other media outlets, and viewers would understand that contemporary escalations between the nations involved should not be considered in isolation’.
• The report did not ‘seek or purport to analyse the extensive history of conflict between these two countries, or to assign blame to a particular party for any of the recent escalations.’
• ‘There was no material in the programme which expressed a high level of condemnation of the Iranian people.’
• Iran is not an organisation for the purposes of the fairness standard.

The standard

[9]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁶ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁷ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[10]  We consider the complaint is best addressed under the accuracy standard. We address the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards briefly at paragraph [37].

Our analysis

[11]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[12]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁸

[13]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[14]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁹

[15]  The complainant has alleged the broadcast misleadingly implies the Iranian strikes were unprovoked by virtue of:

• its use of the term ‘unprecedented’ to refer to Iran’s strikes; and
• the omission to mention Israel’s earlier strike on the Iranian consulate building in Syria.

[16]  The harm the complainant is concerned about is the item as a whole gives the misleading impression that the Iranian strike on Israel was an unprovoked act of aggression.

Majority decision (Susie Staley MNZM, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i, Aroha Beck)

[17]  The first question for the Authority is whether or not the item was misleading. To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.¹⁰  We consider the cumulative effect of the segment is misleading, as outlined below.

Introduction of the segment

[18]  The host introduces the item by saying ‘Just days after Iran launched an unprecedented attack on Israel, tonight, a retaliation’.

[19]  The word ‘unprecedented’ can have multiple meanings. However, the use of ‘unprecedented’ to refer to the Iranian strike, without the accompanying context explaining why it was unprecedented, meant viewers were likely to interpret it as meaning ‘shocking’, ‘unexpected’ or ‘unprovoked’. The reference to only the Israeli strike as a ‘retaliation’ further supports the impression that the Iranian strike was unprovoked.

Comments included in the segment

[20]  The segment included comments as follows:

Elizabeth Neuman (US Department of Homeland Security): There’s a well-known understood approach in the Middle East that you… you have to respond to force with force.

…

Malcolm Davis (Australian Strategic Policy Institute): If they [Iran] retaliate against this very limited attack, then Israel will launch a much more forceful retaliation.

…

CNN Analyst:             We could be in for, you know, a tit for tat that could rapidly get out of control. So, this is a, you know, a pretty serious turning point.

[21]  We consider these comments, taken together, suggest Israel’s retaliatory strike against Iran is the norm for the region and is a proportionate response to the threat posed by Iran’s actions. This has the effect of supporting the impression Iran’s strike was unprovoked.

Impact of quote from Iranian Foreign Minister

[22]  We acknowledge the broadcast included this comment from the Iranian Foreign Minister:

Reporter:                    Hours before Israel’s retaliation, Iran’s Foreign Minister issued this warning:

Hossein Amir-Abdollahian (Iran Foreign Minister): The Israeli regime embarks on adventurism again and takes action against the interests of Iran, the next response from us will be immediate and at a maximum level.

[23]  Including a statement from the Iranian Foreign Minister was an opportunity to avoid any misleading impression about Iran’s strike. However, the clip included was brief and edited in a manner which, in our view, left its meaning unclear.

[24]  In the full interview from which this clip is taken, the Foreign Minister refers to Iran having given an ‘answer’ to Israel’s attack on the consular building in Damascus, Syria, going on to say:¹¹

Our response to the Israeli regime was limited and stayed within a minimum of frameworks, whereas we could have given a much harsher response to the Israeli regime. Following that we announced that this response is within the framework of legitimate defence according to international laws. We will not continue. However, in case the Israeli regime embarks on adventurism again and takes action against the interests of Iran, the next response from us will be immediate and at a maximum level.

[25]  As the broadcast excerpt included only a part of the final sentence, the magnitude and nature of the Israeli ‘adventurism’ being referred to was unclear. Viewers would not have known whether it was recent or connected to a historical dispute or foreshadowing later events.

Likely impression on viewers

[26]  In the context described above, we consider viewers are more likely to have been left with a misleading impression of Iran’s actions. The segment also ran 18 days after the initial Israeli strike on the Iranian consulate. This was a significant enough period that viewers may not connect the two stories, particularly due to the high volume of news about conflict in the Middle East.

[27]  We, the majority, therefore agree that the broadcast was misleading.

Did the broadcaster make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy?

[28]  Having found the item was misleading, the second question for the Authority is whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme. We consider TVNZ did not make reasonable efforts.

[29]  As we have previously recognised, it is important that broadcasters take care when reporting on such international issues because such reports affect and shape viewers’ perceptions of the issues involved.¹² Having reported on the relevant prior context itself, this is not a case where TVNZ was reasonably unaware of the background.¹³

[30]  Given the significance of the escalating conflict, reasonable care, in this situation, required greater effort to avoid misleading viewers. This could have been as simple as including further context from the Iranian Foreign Minister’s statement, a brief mention of the prior Israeli consulate strike or adding a sentence similar to the BBC’s report, ‘Iran has launched hundreds of aerial drones and missiles at Israel marking a widely anticipated reprisal attack’.¹⁴

[31]  In the circumstances, we consider the likely harm caused by the broadcast was significant enough to warrant our intervention and we uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard. Given how easily the misleading impression could have been corrected, we do not consider this an unreasonable limitation on the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

Minority opinion (John Gillespie)

[32]  I do not agree with the majority that the broadcast was misleading.

[33]  The Israeli consulate strike was approximately two and a half weeks before the broadcast. It was widely regarded as a dangerous escalation in the Middle East and was extensively covered across local and international media including, as submitted by TVNZ, in 1News.¹⁵ In my view, most 1News Tonight viewers are likely to have been aware there was some context to Iran’s attack making them unlikely to interpret the broadcast in the way alleged.

[34]  The focus of the 19 April broadcast was on the most recent developments in the conflict. It was reasonably within TVNZ’s editorial discretion to focus on the latest events and omit widely publicised background. Breaking news stories should not always have to relitigate the genesis of a conflict between countries.

[35]  To the extent there may have been viewers unaware of the prior context, I disagree that the natural conclusion to be drawn from the broadcast was that Iran’s strike was an unprovoked act of aggression. This is for the following reasons:

Description of strike as ‘unprecedented’

• While it might have assisted to explain why Iran’s strike was being described as ‘unprecedented’, the complaint relies on it carrying a specific meaning when its meaning is simply unclear. ‘Unprecedented’ is capable of reflecting, for example, the manner, timing, magnitude or impact of the attack.
• In this case, the Iranian strike on Israel was an ‘unprecedented’ one as it was the first launched directly from Iranian soil and not through proxies in Palestine, Lebanon or Yemen.¹⁶ Viewers may not all be aware of this. However, given the multiple meanings the term might carry, I consider it unlikely most 1News Tonight viewers would assume it meant ‘unprovoked’.

Iranian Foreign Minister’s comments

• I agree with the majority that the editing of the Iranian Foreign Minister’s comments obscured the Iranian position to some degree. However, it was clear from the relevant excerpt that Iran had issued a statement before Israel’s 19 April ‘retaliation’ which both:
  
  (a)  conveyed a warning about Israel engaging in ‘adventurism’ again (indicating there had been some prior Israeli activity to which Iran objected); and
  (b)  indicated that Iran had previously had cause to ‘respond’ to something Israel had done (given use of the phrase ‘the next response from us will be immediate and at a maximum level’). 
• Even if the nature of Israel’s prior ‘adventurism’ and Iran’s prior ‘response’ is left unclear, this clip is inconsistent with any interpretation that Iran’s actions were entirely unprovoked. In addition, while this excerpt is brief and somewhat ambiguous, it is less brief and ambiguous than the single use of the word ‘unprecedented’ which the complainant alleges should colour the broadcast’s interpretation.

Other comments included in the segment

• In my view, the comments mentioned by the majority at paragraph [20] are consistent with the sort of commentary viewers might expect following such a serious event (exploring potential motivators and implications for the Israeli strike which had just happened).
• None of the comments directly reference or criticise Iran.
• They do not support any argument Iran’s strike was unprovoked. The broadcast was focused on the serious risks introduced by ‘tit for tat’ strikes in the Middle East. These comments reinforce the dangers of retaliatory action and the concerns of the international community following Israel’s latest strike:
  • The introduction cited ‘growing fears’ the situation could spiral out of control following Israel’s ‘retaliation’.
  • The broadcast suggests the United States to be distancing itself from Israel’s action (ie ‘denying greenlighting Israel’s action’).
  • The broadcast conveys the United Nations’ concern that the Middle East is ‘on the precipice’ and finishes with the Secretary General’s call: ‘The moment of maximum peril must be a time for maximum restraint’.

[36]  For these reasons, I do not agree that the broadcast was materially misleading in the manner alleged or, consequently, that it might cause any harm of a nature sufficient to justify the Authority’s intervention in the broadcaster’s editorial decisions and freedom of expression.

Other standards

[37]  We consider the remaining standards raised in the complaint either did not apply or were not breached.

• Discrimination and Denigration¹⁷: While Iranian people are a group to which the standard can apply, the broadcast was concerned with the alleged actions of the Iranian Government. It is not discriminatory to ethnic groups within a country to discuss alleged actions taken by their government.¹⁸
• Fairness¹⁹: The fairness standard only applies to people or organisations taking part in or referred to in a broadcast. The complainant’s concerns about the impact of the segment on Iranians living in New Zealand is not applicable under this standard.²⁰ The segment did not refer to Iranian people, but to the actions of the Iranian Government.

For the above reasons a majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of an item on 1News Tonight on 19 April 2024 breached Standard 6 of the Code of Broadcasting Standards of New Zealand.

[38]  Having upheld the accuracy complaint, the Authority may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We do not intend to do so on this occasion. Taking into account that the decision was not unanimous, we consider that the publication of the decision is sufficient in all the circumstances.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
7 August 2024    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Rami Al-Jiab’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 20 April 2024

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 20 May 2024

3  Al-Jiab’s referral to the Authority – 23 May 2024

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 11 June 2024

¹ “Death toll update | Woman and her son among 16 people killed in Israeli raid on building attached to Iranian embassy” The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (online ed, 3 April 2024)
² Patrick Wintour “Iran vows revenge after two generals killed in Israeli strike on Syria consulate” The Guardian (online ed, 1 April 2024)
³ "Iran attacks Israel with over 300 drones, missiles: What you need to know" Al-Jazeera (online ed, 14 April 2024)
⁴ Jon Gambrell and Josef Federman “Israel, Iran play down apparent Israeli strike. The muted responses could calm tensions – for now” Associated Press (online ed, 20 April 2024)
⁵ Raffi Berg “Israel on high alert after unprecedented Iranian attack” BBC News (online ed, 14 April 2024)
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁷ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁹ Guideline 6.2
¹⁰ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
¹¹ Simone McCarthy and Tara John "Iran's military response will be 'immediate and at a maximum level' if Israel attacks, foreign minister says" CNN (online ed, 19 April 2024)
¹² Gunasekara and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2010-075 at [22]
¹³ 1News Reporters “Iran, Israel conflict: ‘Rapid erosion of norms and rules’ – expert” 1News (online ed, 15 April 2024), 1News Reporters “Luxon, Peters condemn ‘shocking and illegal’ Iran strikes on Israel” 1News (online ed, 15 April 2024)
¹⁴ Raffi Berg "Israel on high alert after unprecedented Iranian attack" BBC (online ed, 14 April 2024)
¹⁵ See "Israel air strike destroys Iranian consulate in Syria - state media" RNZ (online ed, 2 April 2024), "Israeli airstrike has destroyed Iran's consulate building in Damascus, Syria says" Stuff (online ed, 2 April 2024), "Israeli strike on Iran's consulate in Syria killed two generals, Iranian officials say" NZ Herald (online ed, 2 April 2024), Patrick Wintour “Iran vows revenge after two generals killed in Israeli strike on Syria consulate” The Guardian (online ed, 1 April 2024), Sean Seddon and Daniele Palumbo “What we know about Israel’s missile attack on Iran” BBC News (online ed, 20 April 2024), Dr Haid Haid “The strike on Iran’s consulate in Syria could be the spark that ignites the Middle East” Chatham House (online ed, 12 April 2024), Al Jazeera Reporters “Israel strikes Iran consulate in Syria’s capital Damascus: What we know” Al Jazeera (online ed, 2 April 2024), Luis Martinez “Pentagon says Israel conducted strike against Iran in Syria” ABC News (online ed, 3 April 2024), Reuters Reporters “Iran says Israel bombs its embassy in Syria, kills commanders” Reuters (online ed, 2 April 2024), Kareem Chehayeb and Albert Aji ”Israeli strike on Iran’s consulate in Syria killed 2 generals and 5 other officers, Iran says” Associated Press (online ed, 12 April 2024), Jeremy Bowen and David Gritten “Iran accuses Israel of killing generals in Syria strike” BBC News (online ed, 2 April 2024)
¹⁶ Alexander Palmer, Daniel Byman, Seth G. Jones, and Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. “Assessing Israel’s Strike on Iran” Centre for Strategic and International Studies (online ed, 3 May 2024)
¹⁷ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ See Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057 at [38] and McArthur and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-004 at [34] for similar findings
¹⁹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁰ See McArthur and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-004 at [34] for a similar finding