BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

"Security forces in Israel have shot dead another leading member of the militant

Islamic movement, ..." reported an RNZ news item on 27 November 1993. The story

continued by recording that the person was found in East Jerusalem and was shot

while trying to escape. The item concluded by noting that the earlier shooting of a

leading member of the movement in Gaza had led to widespread disturbances there.

The Wellington Palestine Group complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the item

was inaccurate by describing East Jerusalem and Gaza as part of Israel rather than as

part of the occupied territories.

Maintaining that the item did not state that the named territories were part of Israel

and the references to security forces in Israel meant Israeli security forces on this

occasion, RNZ declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ's response,

the 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 upheld the complaint that part of the

broadcast contained an inaccuracy. It declined to uphold the complaint that any other

part of the report was inaccurate.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read a transcript of the item complained about

which was included in the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its

practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

A news item broadcast by RNZ on 27 November 1993 reported that security forces

in Israel had shot dead a leading member of the militant Islamic movement. According

to the Israelis, the report continued, he was found in East Jerusalem and was shot

while trying to escape. The Wellington Palestine Group complained to RNZ that by

stating that the shootings, which occurred in East Jerusalem, were carried out by

security forces in Israel, the report mistakenly implied that East Jerusalem and Gaza

were part of Israel. The Group maintained that no other interpretation was possible

other than the unlikely circumstance of the Israelis firing over the "Green Line", or

even more unlikely, that the victim, although found in East Jerusalem, had escaped

from his captors and was killed elsewhere.

The Group reminded RNZ that it had pointed out this important description error

frequently in the past. It repeated that Israel was an illegal occupying force in East

Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and southern Lebanon and should

be described as such.

RNZ reported that it had assessed the complaint under standard R1 of the Radio Code

of Broadcasting which requires broadcasters:

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

programmes.

It noted that the brief item was sourced, substantially unchanged, from the BBC and

that it had referred to both East Jerusalem and Gaza, although it had not stated they

were part of Israeli territory. RNZ rejected the suggestion that the words "Security

forces in Israel..." could be interpreted as implying that any part of the occupied area

was part of Israel. It argued that the opening sentence was well separated in the item

from the later references to the locations of the shootings and that what was clearly

meant was "Israeli security forces".

The Wellington Palestine Group rejected RNZ's explanation, commenting that it was

impossible to conclude that "security forces in Israel" meant the same as "Israeli

security forces" when one was a description of the geographic location of the force

(which many not have even been Israeli) and the other referred to nationality. It

argued that if RNZ meant "Israeli security forces", then it should have said so and

accused RNZ of not taking seriously the issue of correctly labelling a particular area of

land. The Group explained that it was a very serious issue, since it conveyed in the

public mind the difference between a people resisting illegal occupation and a people

resisting lawful authority.

At the outset, the Authority noted that there have been a number of complaints about

the careless use of the word "Israel" when referring to events in the Middle East and

that broadcasters have been advised in the past to take particular care in broadcasts

about that region. Upon examination of the text of the item the Authority concluded

that it did not accurately convey the facts and it was open to the interpretation

claimed by the Wellington Palestine Group. Clearly, security forces stationed in Israel

could not have shot the Islamic leader in East Jerusalem, since East Jerusalem is not

part of Israel but is one of the occupied territories. The Authority concluded that the

report as broadcast was inaccurate, and accordingly upheld the complaint that it was

in breach of standard R1.

With reference to the second part of the item which stated:

The shooting of Imad Akel in Gaza earlier this week led to widespread

disturbances there.

the Authority concluded that no breach of the accuracy standard occurred. Gaza was

clearly identified as a distinct and separate geographical location and it was not

possible to draw the inference that it was part of Israel. It declined to uphold that

aspect of the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaint that part

of the report broadcast by Radio New Zealand Ltd on 27 November 1993 was

inaccurate and in breach of standard R1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint.

Having upheld a complaint, the Authority may impose an order under s.13(1) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. It does not intend to do so because, although it did not accept

RNZ's interpretation of the statement, its argument was not entirely without merit

and it was by implication rather than by specific and direct statement that the

impression was conveyed that East Jerusalem was part of Israel.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
15 August 1994

Appendix

Wellington Palestine Group's Complaint to Radio New Zealand Limited

The Wellington Palestine Group and Radio New Zealand Ltd have corresponded

regularly in recent years about the terms used in news items to describe the Middle

East territories occupied by Israel. In a letter dated 22 December 1993, the Group's

Chair (Ms Nadia el Maaroufi) complained to RNZ about a news item on 27

November which reported that a killing in East Jerusalem had occurred in Israel.

RNZ's Informal Response to the Complaint

In an attempt to resolve the complaint informally, RNZ's General Manager of News

and Current Affairs (Mr Ray Lilley) replied in a letter dated 24 December 1994.

Explaining that the story came from the ABC, he said that the relevant portion read:

Security forces in Israel have shot dead another leading member of the militant

Islamic movement, Hamas, the second in three days. He's been named as

Khaled-al-Zeer. The Israelis say he was found in East Jerusalem and was shot

while trying to escape. The shooting of Imad Akel in Gaza earlier this week

led to widespread disturbances there.

RNZ maintained that while the story did not acknowledge that East Jerusalem and

Gaza were "occupied", it did not state that they were part of Israel.

The Group's Formal Complaint to Radio New Zealand Limited

Describing the informal response as "totally unsatisfactory". in a letter dated 1

February 1994 the Group sought a formal response to its complaint on the basis:

The script of the news item quite clearly mistakenly makes the claim that Israel

includes East Jerusalem and Gaza. The shootings happened in these locations,

and the story specifically talks of, "Security forces in Israel". It does not refer

to them as, "Israeli security forces", where the location could be ambiguous.

The Group maintained that no other interpretation was possible unless the Israeli

troops had fired over the "Green Line" on both occasions.

The Group also referred to a Broadcasting Standards Authority 1991 decision (No:

44/91) in which broadcasters had been warned of the consequences should the

"occupied territories" be wrongly described as Israel.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint

RNZ advised the Group of its Complaints Committee's decision in a letter dated 2

March 1994. It began by noting that the complaint was received outside the period

when the broadcaster must consider it but, it added, RNZ had decided to use its

discretion and accept the complaint on this occasion.

Advising that the complaint had been assessed against standard R1 of the Radio Code

of Broadcasting Practice which requires factual accuracy, RNZ said it did not state

that the named places - East Jerusalem and Gaza - were part of Israel. Maintaining

that the introductory words to the item - Security forces in Israel - were equivalent to

Israeli Security Forces, RNZ did not accept:

... that a listener would infer from these words that any occupied area was being

referred to without qualification as Israeli territory.

RNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

The Group's Response to the Formal Complaint

Describing RNZ's logic on the substance of the complaint as equivalent to that of

Lewis Carroll's, in a letter dated 8 March 1994 the Group wrote to RNZ seeking an

explanation as to its reference to the lapsed time limit.

It also maintained that had the item meant "Israeli security forces", then it should have

said so. The Group continued:

If this were an occasional lapse we would not mind so much. We are moved to

complain though because of the persistent nature of your coverage in favour of

Israel and Israeli commentators. Morning Report's use of Israeli sources to the

exclusion of Palestinian ones for instance.

More specifically we suspect that this particular issue of correct labelling of a

particular area of land is not being taken seriously by you. We take it seriously

for in summary it conveys in the public mind the difference between a people

resisting illegal occupation and a people resisting lawful authority.

The Group also advised RNZ that it was sending a copy of all the correspondence to

the Broadcasting Standards Authority to ensure it complied with the limit (20 working

days) which applies to referrals. However, because a further complaint raised a

similar issue, it had not as yet referred the matter to the Authority formally.

RNZ's Response to the Procedural Point

RNZ responded to the procedural point in a letter dated 29 March 1994. It explained

that its comments did not form part of its response to another specific formal

complaint contained in the same letter (not about the 27 November item - rather items

on 28 February, 3 and 6 March).

After dealing with the formal complaints process and the statutory time limits set out

in the Broadcasting Act 1989, RNZ pointed out that the Authority would probably

treat the complaint about the 27 November item and 28 February, 3 and 6 March

items as distinct complaints.

The Group's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority

Upon receiving RNZ's reply, on 1 April 1994 the Group referred the complaint to the

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

The Group wrote:

We sadly must write to you again concerning once more the inability of

broadcasters to manage to achieve a rudimentary accuracy in geographical

description of the Middle East.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority's Response to the Complaint

After checking with the complainant and the broadcaster as accurately as possible the

dates on which the correspondence had been posted and received - because it has no

option but to decline to accept referrals which do not comply with the statutory time

limits - the Authority decided to accept the referral as it was received within 20

working days.

Consequently, as is its practice, in a letter dated to 16 May 1994, the Authority

wrote to the broadcaster asking for the tape of the programme complained about and

any further comment RNZ might wish to make in light of the Authority's decision

that the referral complied with the statutory time limits.

RNZ's Response to the Authority

In a letter dated 10 May 1994, RNZ had informed the Authority about a number of

procedural matters in its correspondence with the complainant. Mr Richard Hereford

of RNZ also advised the Authority:

At the present time, I do not believe the Company has anything to add to its

decisions as conveyed to the Palestine Group.

By telephone on 7 July 1994, RNZ confirmed that stance in response to the

Authority's request in its letter of 16 May.