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 alleging a 1News item reporting on violence in Amsterdam in November 2024 surrounding the Ajax v Maccabi Tel Aviv football match, breached the balance standard. The Authority acknowledged the violence in Amsterdam appeared to be ‘controversial’, but was satisfied that to the extent the item could be seen as ‘discussing’ the alleged causes or instigators of the violence, the item adequately reported the information the complainant considered was missing. 

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  A 1News item on 9 November 2024 reported on violence in Amsterdam surrounding a football match between local team Ajax and Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv:

Newsreader:            Police are on the streets of Amsterdam the day after pro-Palestinian protesters roamed the Dutch city attacking Israeli football fans after a game. This is some of the disturbing video to emerge on social media of people being pursued and beaten. One man crying out ‘I'm not Jewish’ as an attacker throws punches. Five victims were hospitalised and others suffered minor injuries. Amsterdam's mayor described it as an explosion of antisemitism. The BBC… reports.

BBC reporter:           International tensions reverberating on the streets of Amsterdam. The circumstances leading up to this are still unclear. There were incidents the day before: a Palestinian flag was torn down; a taxi attacked. Police said Maccabi supporters were to blame. And last night, a group of Maccabi fans making racist chants on an escalator. More than a thousand police officers were deployed in anticipation of trouble. But the violence happened after the game, away from the stadium as fans headed to their hotels. Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were hunted down by men on scooters, according to the mayor of Amsterdam.

Mayor:                     [Voiced by reporter] …Individuals on scooters crisscrossed the city searching for supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv. It was hit and run…

BBC reporter:          She said it brought to mind historical persecution against Jewish people in Dutch and European history. It was put to the mayor that the attackers had a Moroccan background. She wouldn't talk about ethnicity and said that it was for the investigation.

Maccabi fans:          They came really late. They came too late. They came when there were people who were already [hurt], injured.

BBC reporter:          The Dutch capital is no stranger to football-related violence, but this doesn't seem to have been hooliganism between rival supporters, but rather targeted attacks based not on sporting rivalry, but rather nationality.

The Dutch Prime Minister, Dick Skov is cutting short his time at a summit in Budapest to come home and deal with what he described as antisemitic attacks.

Newsreader:            US President Joe Biden says the attacks echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted. Three quarters of the Jewish people in the Netherlands were murdered in the Holocaust during World War Two.

The complaint

[2]  John Barclay complained the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand: ‘This and other TVNZ coverage of the riots in Rotterdam (sic) during which Israeli soccer supporters were attacked were insufficiently balanced. “Widely condemned as antisemitism”. A balanced article would mention the racist behaviour of the Israeli soccer supporters…’ Barclay cited an article he considered demonstrated ‘balanced coverage’.¹

[3]  On referring the matter to the Authority (and responding to TVNZ’s decision on the complaint), Barclay added it seemed ‘absurd to suggest that news biased towards Israel is not controversial’, and that an individual item could ‘escape the requirement to be balanced by pointing to other news items allegedly providing balancing information. Surely there is a requirement for each and every news item to meet a threshold of balance.’ Barclay considered it ‘superficial’ to state the riots were widely condemned as antisemitism.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ found no breach of the balance standard and did not uphold the complaint, for the following reasons:

• It did not agree ‘the violence in Amsterdam’ was a controversial issue of public importance as envisaged by the balance standard, ‘however we understand that the wider issue of violence and conflict between Palestine and Israel is the background to these events, as are other events such as the Holocaust, and Kristallnacht (the anniversary of which is November 9).’
• ‘While this 1News item is a straight news story describing events in Amsterdam, the different causes of the violence are described, including some of the actions of the Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters the day before (destroying flags, attacking a taxi). The Maccabi supporters’ chants are described as “racist”, which is an accurate descriptor.’
• The issues have also been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints. Authority guidance recognises ‘Balance requirements reflect the current media landscape where opportunities to learn about different… perspectives are typically available from multiple sources. Audiences are not dependent on any one programme for all their… information or analysis.’²
• TVNZ pointed to other 1News coverage (online), which reported:
  • ‘…video showed a large crowd of Israeli fans chanting anti-Arab slogans on their way to the game. …Tensions had been brewing in Amsterdam for days ahead of the match. A Palestinian flag was torn down from a building in Amsterdam on Wednesday, Dutch broadcaster NOS reported, and authorities banned a pro-Palestinian demonstration near the stadium. Ahead of the game, large crowds of supporters of the Israeli team could be seen on video chanting anti-Arab slogans as they headed to the stadium, escorted by police.’³
  • ‘Before the match against Ajax, Maccabi fans also tore a Palestinian flag off a building in Amsterdam and chanted anti-Arab slogans on their way to the stadium. There were also reports of Maccabi fans starting fights.’⁴
  • ‘In Amsterdam, a number of Maccabi fans attacked a cab and chanted anti-Arab slogans while some men carried out "hit and run" attacks on people they thought were Jews, according to city Mayor Femke Halsema. After the match, parts of a large group of Maccabi supporters armed with sticks ran around “destroying things”, a 12-page report on the violence issued by Amsterdam authorities said.’⁵

The standard

[5]  The purpose of the balance standard (Standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁶ The standard states:⁷

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

Our analysis

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

[7]  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, including the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where the resulting limit on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably reasonable and justified, in light of the harm.⁸

Balance

[8]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.⁹

[9]  We acknowledge the Amsterdam events and resulting violence appeared to be ‘controversial’ given alleged racial tensions and prior provocations by the Israeli fans (as well as being linked by some commentators more broadly to Gaza and the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict). To the extent this item could be viewed as ‘discussing’ the causes or instigators of the violence, we are satisfied the item met the requirements of the balance standard and presented an adequate range of balancing information and viewpoints.

[10]  The complaint was that the item should have mentioned the ‘racist behaviour’ of the Israeli fans. We consider this was adequately conveyed in the pre-recorded BBC item, which stated:

International tensions reverberating on the streets of Amsterdam. The circumstances leading up to this are still unclear. There were incidents the day before: a Palestinian flag was torn down; a taxi attacked. Police said Maccabi supporters were to blame. And last night, a group of Maccabi fans making racist chants on an escalator.

[11]  The complainant also objected to presentation of the violence as being ‘widely condemned as antisemitism’. The references in this item to the violence being ‘an explosion of antisemitism’ and ‘described as antisemitic attacks’ were clearly attributed to the mayor of Amsterdam and the Dutch Prime Minister (and similarly reported by other outlets here and internationally).¹⁰

[12]  Responding to the remainder of the complainant’s submissions, in particular that broadcasters should not be able to ‘escape the requirement to be balanced by pointing to other news items allegedly providing balancing information. Surely there is a requirement for each and every news item to meet a threshold of balance’, we note:

• The standard explicitly allows for balance to be achieved over time ‘in other broadcasts within the period of current interest’. Therefore the broadcaster is not required to include a range of perspectives, or all angles, within every item covering a particular story.
• The standard also explicitly recognises the broadcaster is not required to provide balancing viewpoints where ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’. The Amsterdam events were widely covered by other media outlets, reducing the likelihood anyone would be left uninformed overall or unable to form their own views on what had happened.
• As outlined above (paragraph [4]), TVNZ has provided us with transcripts of other 1News coverage online that reported further details of the violence which the complainant wished to be included in this particular item.

[13]  In these circumstances we have identified no harm justifying our intervention in this exercise of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
12 March 2025

Appendix

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

1  Barclay’s original complaint – 16 November 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint – 11 December 2024

3  Barclay’s referral to the Authority – 27 December 2024

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 31 January 2025 and 4 February 2025

5  TVNZ clarifying other TVNZ online coverage cited in its decision was not broadcast – 19 February 2025

¹ The complaint included a link to an online news site Middle East Eye and an article, by Joseph Massad, “Why Dutch support for Israel's football has roots in colonial racism” Middle East Eye (online ed, 12 November 2024). Massad is a professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University, New York. He is the author of many books and academic and journalistic articles on this subject. His analysis in the article presents a critique of the Dutch political establishment’s current and historical stance toward Israel and Palestine. It questions the ‘selective moral outrage’ expressed by leaders like King Willem-Alexander and President Biden, suggesting that their condemnation of "antisemitic" violence fails to address ‘the complex realities of the situation, including the role of Israeli football fans in provoking violence’.
² Broadcasting Standards Authority, “Complaints Unlikely to Succeed” <www.bsa.govt.nz>
³ Associated Press “Israeli football fans attacked in Amsterdam, condemned as antisemitic” 1News (online ed, 9 November 2024)
⁴ Associated Press “Amsterdam police detain protesters after banned demonstration” 1News (online ed, 11 November 2024)
⁵ Associated Press “France boosts security for Israel match after Amsterdam violence” 1News (online ed, 15 November 2024)
⁶ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁷ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Guideline 5.1
¹⁰ For example, Reuters, “Israel to collect soccer fans from Amsterdam after apparent antisemitic attacks” RNZ (online ed, 8 November 2024); Sky News Reporters “Emergency measures in Amsterdam over attacks on Israeli football fans after Palestinian flags torn down” Sky News (online ed, 8 November 2024)