BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Items broadcast on Morning Report on 4 May and 20 May 1994 referred to reporter

Asher Wallfish as Radio New Zealand's correspondent in Jerusalem and alternatively

as the correspondent in Israel.

The Wellington Palestine Group, through its Chairperson Ms Nadia el Maaroufi,

complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the description was

inaccurate. In addition, the Group noted that the error had been made on previous

occasions on 15 and 27 November 1993, and 28 February and 3 March 1994.

RNZ responded that there was no reason to assume that, because the area of

Jerusalem from which the report came was not identified, it was from the occupied

territory. Therefore, it argued, there was no conflict between describing the reporter

as being the correspondent in Israel and the correspondent in Jerusalem and declined to

uphold the complaints. Dissatisfied with that decision, Ms el Maaroufi, on behalf of

the Group, referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

For the reasons given below, the Authority upheld the complaints that standard R1 was

breached.

Decision

The members of the Authority have read the correspondence between the parties

(summarised in the Appendix). Neither a tape nor a transcript was available but the

parties did not dispute the content of the broadcasts. As is its usual practice, the

Authority has determined the complaints without a formal hearing.

A report from RNZ's correspondent Asher Wallfish on Morning Report on 4 May

1994 introduced him as its correspondent in Israel at about 8.30am and at about

8.55am described him as RNZ's correspondent in Jerusalem. A second report on 20

May contained similar descriptions.

Ms el Maaroufi for the Wellington Palestine Group complained that to introduce the

reports from Asher Wallfish as being both from Israel and from Jerusalem would lead

listeners to conclude that Jerusalem was legitimate Israeli territory. The Group

maintained that it was inaccurate and misleading to imply that Jerusalem was part of

Israel and accused RNZ of endorsing the illegal Israeli occupation of Jerusalem. It

argued that the introduction to the item should have noted where in Israel Mr Wallfish

filed from, and if it was from West Jerusalem, that it should have said so.

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

Broadcasting Practice which requires broadcasters:

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

programmes.

It reported that it had analysed the text of the introductory statements in the

broadcast of 4 May 1994 and had concluded that since the area of Jerusalem from

which Mr Wallfish was speaking was not identified, there was no basic conflict

between the statement that he was reporting from Israel and from Jerusalem. It wrote:

There is no contradiction in describing him as filing both from Israel and from

Jerusalem (in the absence of a specific reference to an area within occupied

territory, there is nothing to justify a conclusion that occupied territory is

intended).

Likewise, after its examination of the text of the 20 May item, RNZ reported that

there was no justification to allege that the text was inaccurate when it described Mr

Wallfish both as reporting from Jerusalem and as its correspondent in Israel. It

advised that it did not accept that listeners would have concluded that the whole of

Jerusalem was original, legitimate Israeli territory and did not believe that such a

contention was expressed either overtly or covertly in either of the two broadcasts.

In order to put this matter into perspective and as part of its deliberation on this

matter, the Authority records that it arranged for a senior spokesperson from the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to provide additional information

about the geopolitical status of the territories in the Middle East and New Zealand's

position relating to it. For this purpose a meeting was held which was attended by

two Authority members and three staff, and four representatives from RNZ, on 14

December 1994. The spokersperson from MFAT outlined the history of the status of

Jerusalem since 1947 and explained the New Zealand government's official position on

the political status of Jerusalem and its stance on the peace negotiation process. A

copy of the notes of that meeting has been supplied to the complainant.

The Authority took into account the turbulent history of the Israeli state since 1947,

the United Nations resolutions regarding the status of Jerusalem and the present peace

negotiation process which is attempting to rationalise some of the territorial disputes.

It noted that when the Israeli state was established it was proposed that Jerusalem be

a corpus separatum under the administrative authority of the United Nations. By

July 1948 Israel controlled portions of the territory allotted to the Arab state as well

as the Western part of Jerusalem. The Authority understood that since 1950 when

Israel declared Jerusalem its capital, its parliament and government agencies have been

located in West Jerusalem. After the war of 1967, Israel occupied East Jerusalem and

the West Bank and declared that a united Jerusalem was its capital. That action was

considered by the UN to be a violation of international law. The Authority was

advised that for many Palestinians, the Jewish occupation of West Jerusalem was not

regarded as legitimate, even though it occurred nearly 50 years ago, while its more

recent occupation of East Jerusalem was not regarded as legitimate by most western

countries, including New Zealand, and was the subject of ongoing negotiations. At the

same time, the Authority recognised that as far as Israel was concerned, Jerusalem is

its capital and is wholly occupied by it.

The question the Authority had to consider was whether it was inaccurate to describe

the reporter as reporting from Israel and from Jerusalem. It accepted that if the report

was being broadcast from East Jerusalem (that part of the city occupied by Israel after

the 1967 war), it would be inaccurate to state that it was a report from Israel since the

New Zealand government (in line with the UN and other western countries) does not

recognise Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem as lawful. If, however, the report came

from West Jerusalem, which has been occupied by Israel for nearly 50 years, it would

have been consistent with international opinion to imply that the report was from

Israel. The Authority noted that the Wellington Palestine Group's view was that if

Mr Wallfish was filing from West Jerusalem, then he should identify his reporting

location as "West Jerusalem". While it understood the Group's view, the Authority

did not agree that that was a satisfactory compromise since it would be unnecessarily

contentious and possibly offensive to Israelis. The Authority noted that the Group

had sought from RNZ information to clarify the exact location from which the reports

were being filed and that while RNZ was unable to confirm that it was definitely in

West Jerusalem, it maintained that the absence of a specific reference to the location

did not justify drawing the conclusion that the report came from occupied territory.

The Authority referred to its decision No: 44/91 PDF609.76 kB when it wrote:

The Authority stresses to TVNZ, and to all other broadcasters, that the use of

the words "Israel", "PLO" or the "Middle East" in news sources should be a

sign that their use requires special care. The Authority is not suggesting that,

because of the sensitivities of some viewers, the items should not be broadcast.

However, it is putting on record that if they are used carelessly by way of

accompanying captions or commentary ... the Authority will have little

sympathy for the broadcaster should it be required to determine further formal

complaints about such broadcasts.

The Authority repeats that this is an occasion where the broadcaster should have used

special care in order to avoid the possibility of ambiguity. In the absence of specific

information about the location of the reporter, it decided that it was inaccurate to state

that he was reporting both from Jerusalem and from Israel and upheld the complaints

that there was a breach of standard R1.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority upholds the complaints that the

broadcast by Radio New Zealand Limited of news items on 4 and 20 May 1994

breached standard R1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

Having upheld the complaints, the Authority may make an order under s.13 of the

Broadcasting Act 1989. It does not intend to do so on this occasion because the

Authority believes RNZ has shown a willingness to resolve this matter for the future

as evidenced by the attendance of senior staff at the meeting with the representative

from MFAT.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
Chairperson
23 February 1995

Appendix

The Wellington Palestine Group's Formal Complaints to Radio New Zealand

Limited - 12 and 26 May 1994

The Wellington Palestine Group, through its spokesperson, Ms Nadia el Maaroufi,

complained to Radio New Zealand Limited that items on Morning Report were in

breach of the codes of broadcasting practice.

The Group referred to a report from RNZ's correspondent Asher Wallfish. It noted

that he was described as RNZ's "correspondent in Israel" at about 8.30am and as

RNZ's "correspondent in Jerusalem" at about 8.55am.

It added that it did not need to repeat what it found objectionable about this, pointing

to similar instances on 15 November, 27 November, 28 February and 3 March.

Its letter of 26 May referred to a similar breach on 20 May 1994 in Morning Report.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaints - 21 June 1994

RNZ advised the Group that in the absence of any specific standard being cited it had

considered the complaints under standard R1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting

Practice.

It advised that it decided that the complaint was based on a perceived contradiction of

one statement with the other, which it concluded that the Group interpreted as saying

that no part of Jerusalem was occupied territory.

RNZ noted several points concerning this perception and interpretation. First it noted

that the area of Jerusalem from which Asher Wallfish was speaking was not defined

and that there was no reason to suppose it was from the occupied territory.

Therefore, RNZ maintained, there was no conflict between Wallfish's being placed in

Israel in the trailer and by the intro of the main item in Jerusalem. It added that

Wallfish's telephone exchange was Jerusalem and many of his contacts were there

although he himself lived outside the city. RNZ argued that there was no

contradiction in describing him as filing both from Israel and from Jerusalem.

Responding to the complaint about the 20 May item, RNZ argued that there was

nothing contradictory about the statement that Asher Wallfish "joins us on the line

from Jerusalem now..." and the presenter's back announcement "Asher Wallfish, our

correspondent in Israel".

Accordingly, RNZ declined to uphold the complaints.

The Wellington Palestine Group's Complaint to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority - 6 July 1994

Dissatisfied with RNZ's decision not to uphold the complaints, the Wellington

Palestine Group referred them to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under

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

The Group complained that RNZ failed to understand the nature of its complaints, ie

that in describing Jerusalem as part of Israel it was in effect endorsing the illegal Israeli

occupation of Jerusalem.

It explained that with the passage of UN Security Council resolution 242 and

subsequent resolutions, the land which Israel took in the war of 1967 was conferred

with the status of "occupied". The territory includes East Jerusalem, otherwise

known as the Old City. It noted that West Jerusalem was now part of Israel and

when mentioned should be identified as West Jerusalem, to distinguish it from East

Jerusalem.

The Group asked whether RNZ knew if Asher Wallfish filed his reports from West

Jerusalem. If he did, it continued, then he should say so.

The Group's principal objection was that RNZ, by describing Wallfish as reporting

from Israel and from Jerusalem at the same time, was misleading the public into

believing the legitimacy of an Israeli claim on the majority of the city of Jerusalem (ie

East Jerusalem). It argued that the reports would lead listeners to conclude that none

of Jerusalem was anything other than original, legitimate Israeli territory.

It expressed concern at the mention of an RNZ reporter questioning the correspondent

on this matter and being assured that he was not reporting from occupied territory. It

continued:

Should Asher Wallfish have in fact been reporting from West Jerusalem, then

he should have known to report it as such or alternatively not have his report

also describe his location as "Israel".

The Group alleged that Mr Wallfish's reports over the years had been punctuated by

his enthusiasm for the Israeli cause against the Palestinians. Therefore it was

concerned that if Mr Wallfish had instructed RNZ to report as fact what amounts to

simply an Israeli claim, then it argued, the matter had to be taken further.

RNZ's Response to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 25 August 1994

As is its practice, the Authority sought the broadcaster's response to the referral.

RNZ reported that it had no further comment to add to its earlier letter.

The Wellington Palestine Group's Final Comment - 8 September 1994

When asked to make a brief final comment, the Group expressed its disappointment

that no action had been taken against broadcasters for continuing to broadcast

inaccurate descriptions.

The Group noted that RNZ had not responded to its question as to where in

Jerusalem Asher Wallfish broadcast from, adding that if he did report from the small

part of Jerusalem which is in Israel, then RNZ would have saved both the Group and

the Authority a lot of time and trouble by saying so.

Further, it continued, if this were so and RNZ was correct to describe that part of

Jerusalem as being in Israel, then to be consistent, it should describe the rest of

Jerusalem as being in the occupied territories.

Further Correspondence

The Authority proposed an informal meeting between the parties in the interests of

mutual understanding.

RNZ advised that it would not attend a meeting with the Group, however it agreed to

having some representatives at a briefing led by a spokesperson from the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and Trade. That meeting was held on 14 December 1994 and was

attended by two members of the Authority, three members of the Authority's staff,

four representatives from RNZ and three from MFAT.

The spokesperson from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade clarified issues

about the political status of territories in the Middle East and provided a brief history.

In addition he provided a publication prepared by the UN entitled "The United

Nations and the Question of Palestine", the text of the September 1993 Israeli-

Palestinian Declaration of Principles, the text of a letter of invitation to the parties to

the Middle East peace process, the text of the UN Security Council Resolutions 242

and 338 and a media account of the main points of the 26 October 1994 Israeli-Jordan

peace treaty.