BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by Television New Zealand Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a statement in a 1News bulletin that ‘Israel would withdraw from Gaza’ as part of a peace proposal (when the proposal only contemplated withdrawal from densely populated areas). The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision that the statement was materially inaccurate. However, it found TVNZ had complied with the accuracy standard requirement to correct material errors within a reasonable period by posting correct information on its website, and any potential harm caused by the broadcast was not of a level requiring any further action. Other standards alleged to have been breached by the broadcast were found either not to apply or not to have been breached.

Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1News on 1 June 2024 on TVNZ 1 reported on US President Joe Biden’s ‘new Israeli proposal to end the war in Gaza’. The item in its entirety stated:

Host:               Joe Biden's unveiled a new Israeli proposal to end the war in Gaza. The first phase of the plan includes an immediate six-week ceasefire. At the same time, Israel would withdraw from Gaza. Israeli hostages would be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners. And aid, 600 trucks per day would be delivered. In phase two, Hamas and Israel negotiate a permanent ceasefire, The US President acknowledged moving to this phase would be the most difficult. Phase three is a major reconstruction plan for Gaza, with the US and international help. Joe Biden said Hamas was no longer capable of carrying out an attack like the one on October 7th and urged Israel's hardliners to accept the deal.

Pres. Biden:   It's time to begin this new stage. For the hostages to come home. For Israel to be secure. For the suffering to stop. It's time for this war to end.

Host:               In response, Hamas said it viewed the proposal positively. And Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu stated the plan could enable Israel to achieve its objectives. 

The complaint

[2]  Rami Al-Jiab complained the broadcast breached the accuracy, balance, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• The item inaccurately stated that, as part of the first phase of the plan, ‘Israel would withdraw from Gaza.’ In fact, it would only withdraw from densely populated areas in Gaza.
• This misled the audience to believe phase one involved Israel completely withdrawing from Gaza and may in turn lead them to presume Palestinians are being unreasonable if they reject the proposal.
• The inaccuracy merited a ‘formal correction and apology…during the [1News] programme so that the target audience they misled with their inaccuracies are informed’.
• ‘The constant bias of these inaccuracies are always in favour of Israel, hence there’s a balance and fairness issue.’
• The broadcast was discriminatory against Palestinians and Muslims, as:
  (a)  If the proposal was rejected it would reinforce negative stereotypes that they are unreasonable, ‘don’t want peace and resort to violence.’
  (b)  ‘[The] underhanded, repeated bias in favour of Israel…and doubling down on mistakes instead of correcting them in the right way by doing it on air, fits the definition of malice’ for the purposes of Guideline 4.2. The standard also only ‘usually’ requires an element of malice and takes into account ‘repeated behaviour’ under Guideline 4.3.

[3]  The complainant also requested the complaint be viewed in combination with a previous Authority complaint,¹ noting concerns about TVNZ’s reporting being generally biased towards Israel.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ upheld Mr Al-Jiab’s accuracy complaint in the first instance, acknowledging there was a material error of fact. In its decision on the complaint, it offered an apology to the complainant and stated the inaccuracy was caused by human error. It submitted it was ‘not necessary for 1News to correct the inaccuracy on-air as the correct information on phase one of President Biden’s ceasefire plan was widely reported in New Zealand’.

[5]  TVNZ did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint for the following reasons:

• Balance: ‘The issue in question was also discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints that existed.’
• Discrimination and Denigration:
  (a)  There was no material in the programme that expressed a high level of condemnation of the relevant groups.
  (b)  There was no basis, within the report, for the complainant’s concern ‘that Palestinians would be seen as unreasonable for rejecting the plan’.
• Fairness:
  (a)  The fairness standard does not apply to Gazans/Palestinians as they are not an organisation for the purposes of the standard.
  (b)  ‘In any case we consider the description of the US proposal…was not unfair to Gazan’s or Palestinians.’

The standards

[6]  The purpose of the accuracy standard² is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ 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.

[7]  The complainant has also nominated the balance, discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards. However, these complaints are largely founded on the potential harm and indirect impacts of the accuracy standard breach. We consider the issues raised are most appropriately dealt with under the accuracy standard. We have addressed the remaining standards briefly at [23].

Our analysis

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

[9]  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.⁴

Accuracy

[10]  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 the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[11]  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.⁵

Was there a material inaccuracy?

[12]  TVNZ upheld the complaint on this point, accepting there was a material inaccuracy. We agree the reference that ‘Israel would withdraw from Gaza’ was materially inaccurate noting:

• The focus of the item was on the Biden administration’s peace proposal, and the parties’ initial response to it.
• The error relates to the (significant) first phase of the plan.
• There is a significant difference between a full withdrawal and a partial withdrawal of Israel from Gaza, noting there has been an Israeli military presence in Gaza for several years predating the current conflict.⁶

[13]  In our view, the audience is likely to understand the statement as representative of a full withdrawal and, in the circumstances, the inaccuracy is likely to significantly affect the audiences’ understanding of the peace proposal (and consequently the broadcast).

Has TVNZ taken sufficient action to remedy the breach?

[14]  Where a material error of fact has occurred, the accuracy standard requires broadcasters to ‘correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice’.⁷ The parties disagree on whether this limb of the accuracy standard was also breached.

[15]  The broadcaster may correct a material error in such manner as is reasonable (e.g. via broadcast or its website), taking into account:⁸

• the nature and impact of the error
• whether the relevant topic is the subject of ongoing updates and developments in which the correction could appear
• the impact of any other media coverage on the likelihood of the audience being misled
• whether the error is identified (and any impact of the passage of time on its newsworthiness).

[16]  TVNZ has advised the Authority that the inaccurate information was not repeated in any other news bulletins. Although the entire 1News bulletin (including the segment containing the inaccurate information) was available on TVNZ+ for seven days, their system does not allow edits or corrections to such bulletins. The relevant segment was not loaded as a standalone story for the 1News website (which could have been adjusted). However, TVNZ has also advised that it ran a story on its website the following day which referred to the first phase of the deal correctly as involving ‘withdrawal of Israeli forces from all densely populated areas of Gaza’.⁹ The story is no longer available on TVNZ’s website due to the licence expiring, but we have viewed a copy of the relevant segment, as well as the original article TVNZ licensed.¹⁰

[17]  We consider this subsequent website publication serves to correct the error in a way that is reasonable in the circumstances noting:

• The broadcast was a brief early report on the proposed deal. If progressed, the peace plan could reasonably be expected to have been the subject of significant further reporting, offering additional opportunities to correct viewers’ understanding of its features.
• The broadcast did not purport to be a detailed analysis of the proposed deal and viewers are likely to understand there may be more to it than could be conveyed in an item of just over one minute’s length.
• While we agree reporting on such matters is important in shaping viewers’ understanding of the conflict, we consider this individual inaccuracy is unlikely to generate the type of serious indirect consequences the complainant identifies.
• The proposed deal was more accurately described in multiple other media, limiting the likelihood of viewers being misled.¹¹

[18]  For the above reasons, we consider the corrections limb of the accuracy standard was not breached.

[19]  The remaining question is whether any other action may have been appropriate to address the breach of the requirement for material accuracy.

[20]  In assessing this, we consider the severity of the conduct, the extent of the actual or potential harm that may have arisen and whether the action taken appropriately remedied the alleged harm.¹² The factors considered at paragraphs [15] - [17] are relevant in this analysis as well. We also note the broadcaster acknowledged the breach in the first instance, upholding the complaint under the accuracy standard, and the error was not repeated in any other broadcast bulletins.

[21]  In the circumstances, we find any potential harm was not of a level which may require any action in addition to TVNZ’s subsequent online publication of a more accurate description of the deal.

[22]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint that TVNZ’s actions in response to its breach of the accuracy standard were insufficient.

Remaining standards

[23]  The following standards did not apply:

• Balance¹³: The complainant has alleged the balance standard was breached as TVNZ’s coverage of the Israeli-Hamas conflict is in general biased towards Israel. However, our jurisdiction is broadcast specific, and our focus is on the impact of the broadcast complained about. The balance standard also does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias.¹⁴ Its purpose is to ensure competing viewpoints on significant issues are presented when such issues are discussed, enabling viewers to arrive at their own informed and reasoned opinions.¹⁵ The broadcast in this case was a straightforward news report on President Biden’s proposal for a ceasefire and not a ‘discussion’ of a relevant issue for the purposes of the standard.
• Discrimination and Denigration¹⁶: The complainant has argued the broadcast reinforces negative stereotypes that Palestinians and Muslims ‘don’t want peace and resort to violence’. However, this argument relies on an anticipated indirect impact of the broadcast (if the broadcast leads to a positive view of the peace plan and if the peace plan is ultimately rejected by Hamas it may lead to discrimination). The broadcast itself cannot be seen to encourage denigration of any group and does not meet the high level of condemnation normally required to breach the standard. The complainant also suggests errors over time and TVNZ’s failure to correct them on air demonstrates ‘malice’ and ‘repeated behaviour’ suggestive of discrimination. This is a serious allegation, for which we’ve seen no basis. However, again, our focus is on the comments within, and the impact of, the broadcast itself rather than such issues.
• Fairness¹⁷: This standard does not address whether issues/facts are ‘fairly conveyed’. It protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁸ It requires ‘individuals and organisations taking part in or referred to in a broadcast’ to be dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. The complainant has argued that the broadcast is unfair towards Palestinians and Muslims as it reinforces negative stereotypes about these communities. Palestinians and Muslims are not an ‘organisation’ for the purpose of this standard, and it therefore does not apply.¹⁹ Even if the standard is applied to Hamas, who the complainant refers to in their referral, we do not consider the comments about Hamas,  that it is no longer capable of another attack like the October 7th attack and that it viewed the Biden proposal ‘positively’, were unfair.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
4 December 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 – 01 June 2024

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 05 July 2024

3  Al-Jiab’s referral to the Authority – 16 July 2024

4  TVNZ’s further comments on referral – 20 August 2024

5  TVNZ’s further submissions on accuracy – 25 October 2024

6  Al-Jiab’s submissions in response – 30 October 2024

7  TVNZ’s further submissions on the broadcast – 15 November 2024

¹ Al-Jiab and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-041
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 6.2
⁶ Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor “Suffocation and Isolation – 17 Years of Israeli Blockade on Gaza”; Isabel Kershner “Abbas’s Premier Tells Israel to Reopen Gaza” New York Times (online ed, 14 December 2007); Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC “Israel, Blockade of Gaza and the Flotilla Incident” International Committee of the Red Cross; UNICEF “The Gaza Strip | The humanitarian impact of 15 years of blockade – June 2022”; Amnesty International “Israel/OPT: Israel must lift illegal and inhumane blockade on Gaza as power plant runs out of fuel” (online ed, 12 October 2023). 
⁷ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Guideline 6.6
⁹ Associated Press “Israel describes Biden’s cease-fire deal as a ‘nonstarter’” 1News (online ed, 31 May 2024)
¹⁰ Sam Mednick and Wafaa Shurafa “Israeli leader Netanyahu faces growing pressure at home after Biden’s Gaza proposal” Associated Press (online ed, 02 June 2024)
¹¹ The White House “Remarks by President Biden on the Middle East” (online ed, 31 May 2024); Asma Khalid “President Biden unveils and endorses details of a new Israeli cease-fire proposal” NPR (online ed, 31 May 2024); Al Jazeera Staff “Biden says Israel has agreed to ‘enduring’ Gaza ceasefire proposal” Al Jazeera (online ed, 31 May 2024); Kanishka Singh “What’s in the new Israel proposal Biden announced?” Reuters (online ed, 01 June 2024); Julian Border and Emma Graham-Harrison “Biden urges Hamas to accept Israeli plan for Gaza ceasefire: ‘Time for this war to end’” The Guardian (online ed, 31 May 2024); and Bernd Debusmann Jr and Tom Bateman “Biden unveils Israeli proposal to end Gaza war” BBC (online ed, 01 June 2024)
¹² See, for example, Horowhenua District Council and Mediaworks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2018-105 at [19]
¹³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
¹⁵ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
¹⁶ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
¹⁹ See Wakeman and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2022-057 at [16] and Barnett and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-055 at [19] for similar findings