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 under the balance, accuracy and fairness standards about a broadcast of 1News discussing the United States’ decision to send more combat aircraft and war ships to the Middle East following the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. The complainant argued the broadcast was unbalanced and biased towards American and Israeli interests by omitting to mention Haniyeh was the chief negotiator for Hamas in ceasefire negotiations relating to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. The Authority found the broadcast was more of a report on recent events than a discussion of issues to which the balance standard might apply. Even if the balance standard applied, it would not have been breached as the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of the relevant matters from other reporting; the item was a short news item focused on events and did not purport to present a balanced examination of Israel’s motivations or the significance of killing the Hamas leader and ceasefire negotiator; and it featured comments from a variety of perspectives and sources. The accuracy and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  A segment during the 1News broadcast on 03 August 2024 discussed the United States’ decision to send more combat aircraft and war ships to the Middle East following the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh, and possible increased tensions in the Middle East. The segment was introduced as follows:

Melissa Stokes: The United States are sending more combat aircrafts and warships to the Middle East. It’s responding to threats from Iran to attack Israel over the killing of a top Hamas leader. The move from Washington came as thousands gathered in Qatar to mourn Ismail Haniyeh.

…

ABC News Presenter: Tonight, the Biden administration bracing for a potential escalation in the Middle East.

Simon Mercep: That escalation looms after this week’s killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran. Israel has not commented on his death, but Tehran says it will not go unpunished.

[2]  The segment also included comments about the possible consequences of Haniyeh’s death:

Mercep: As thousands gathered today in Doha for Haniyeh’s funeral, many were defiant.

Haniyeh funeral attendee: We will look for revenge. Yes. I’m very honest with you. We will look for revenge.

Mercep: The Pentagon says sending more forces is an attempt to diffuse the crisis, not inflame it.

Sabrina Singh (Pentagon spokesperson): What we are doing to bolster our capabilities is in the defence of Israel and by nature is defensive. So, no, I wouldn’t say it escalates tension.

Mercep: Israel’s faced condemnation for the scale of its response to the October 7th attacks by Hamas. Tonight, the US reaffirmed it stood by Israel.

[3]  The concluding remarks noted concerns for peace negotiations following the escalation in hostilities:

Mercep: A path to peace remains as challenging as ever.

Jeremy Bowen (BBC International Editor): At the beginning of the week, the Americans were talking up the prospect of a ceasefire in Gaza. And now, just at the end of the week, once again, people are talking about an all-out war in the region. It’s a sign of how hard it is to control the pace of events.

Mercep: The world now waits for Iran’s next move.

The complaint

[4]  Lee Duke complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis that the broadcast omitted to mention that Haniyeh was also the chief negotiator for Hamas in ceasefire negotiations, creating ‘bias in favour of the Israeli [and] American narrative and to the disadvantage of Hamas’. They added:

• ‘The news story did not provide probably the most relevant [and] important detail therefore it was not accurate… I believe this was deliberate as they clearly knew the full story but decided not to inform their viewers.’
• ‘The news item failed to mention the huge significance of this act [Haniyeh’s assassination] for the peace talks. If one side kills the chief negotiator of the other side then it’s clear that the killers do not want a ceasefire or peace.’
• ‘Because the news item left out the most significant detail it was not fair to Hamas [and] the Palestinian people in general. Therefore it could be inferred as racist’.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  TVNZ did not uphold Duke’s complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

• The bulletin included discussions about the United States’ decision to provide more military support to Israel after Tehran threatened retribution for Haniyeh’s killing. This is not ‘a controversial issue which would occasion on-going public debate in New Zealand, but in any case we note that significant viewpoints were included on the issue of US military support for Israel’.
• The report was a brief update on the United States’ decision to supply further military aid to Israel. 1News has reported on Haniyeh and his importance to Hamas in other reporting.

Accuracy

• The complainant did ‘not [make] an allegation that any material point of fact is inaccurate in the item. You have stated you would have liked further information to be available about the killing and the importance of Ismail Haniyeh…’
• At the time of the broadcast, 1News had already published information about Haniyeh’s killing.
• It is ‘not misleading to focus on this aspect [United States military aid] of the incident in this report.’

Fairness

• The complainant did not make a specific allegation under this standard.

The standards

[6]  We consider the balance standard most relevant to the complainant’s concerns and have focused our response on this standard. However, the accuracy and fairness standards are addressed briefly at paragraph [16].

[7]  The balance standard¹ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.² The standard only applies to news, current affairs, and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.³

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

[10]  Several 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’. The subject matter must be an issue of ‘public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.⁵

[11]  In our view, the broadcast was more of a report on recent events than a ‘discussion’ of a ‘controversial issue of public importance’ (which might require the presentation of alternative perspectives).⁶ It focused on the United States’ decision to send more military support for Israel following Haniyeh’s killing. It also discussed increased tensions in the Middle East after ‘Tehran [said the killing] will not go unpunished’. While there were brief comments at the end regarding the implications for peace, they were also ‘event focused’ as they addressed the challenges created by the ‘pace of events’. Therefore, we consider the balance standard does not apply.

[12]  Even if it did apply, it would not require the additional content identified by the complainant, noting:

• The standard does not require inclusion of other viewpoints where ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’. Haniyeh’s killing has been the subject of widespread, ongoing coverage in which the broadcaster⁷ and other broadcasters⁸ have provided more of the perspectives the complainant is concerned were excluded. This meant competing viewpoints about the issue were available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.
• As noted above, this broadcast was a short news item focused on events and did not purport to present a balanced examination of Israel’s motivations or the significance of killing the Hamas leader and ceasefire negotiator. The standard recognises that in such cases, the requirement to present significant points of view can be reduced or negated.⁹
• The broadcast, in any case, featured comments from a variety of perspectives and sources. This included mention of condemnation faced by Israel for its response to the October 7 attacks as well as discussion of the possible reactions and consequences of Haniyeh’s killing, including in statements from:
  • the Iranian regime;
  • an attendee at Haniyeh’s funeral;
  • a Pentagon spokesperson; and
  • a BBC International Editor.

[13]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint.

Remaining standards

[14]  The remaining standards did not apply or were not breached:

• Accuracy¹⁰: This standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs, and factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts). The complainant’s concerns relate more to the audience not getting a full picture of the significance of Haniyeh’s killing. Such concerns are more appropriately addressed under balance.
• Fairness¹¹: This standard protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹² It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. The complaint in this case is not focused on damage to the dignity and reputation of those featured in the broadcast, but on the omission of content which may have provided further perspective on Israel’s motivations and the significance of killing the Hamas leader and ceasefire negotiator. However, the fairness standard is not directed at addressing whether issues or facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed.¹³ To the extent the complainant alleges the broadcast was unfair to Hamas and the Palestinian people, we note:
  • Palestinian people were not referred to in the broadcast; and
  • Hamas was only referenced briefly in relation to Haniyeh being a ‘Hamas’ leader and in relation to condemnation faced by Israel for its response to ‘the October 7th attacks by Hamas’. These references were not unfair.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
24 October 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Lee Duke’s original complaint – 04 August 2024

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 30 August 2024

3  Duke’s referral to the Authority – 31 August 2024

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 06 September 2024

¹ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
³ Guideline 5.1
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁵ Guideline 5.1
⁶ For a similar finding, see Young and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-093 at [24]
⁷ Associated Press “Explainer: Who was Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh?” 1News (online ed, 31 July 2024), Associated Press “Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh has been assassinated, Iran says” 1News (online ed, 31 July 2024), Associated Press “Who might replace killed Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh” 1News (online ed, 01 August 2024) 
⁸ Susanna George, Victoria Bisset and Bryan Pietsch “Iran gives first detailed statement on Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh’s killing” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 04 August 2024), Reuters “Killing of Hamas chief ‘a grave escalation’” Otago Daily Times (online ed, 31 July 2024), Al Jazeera Reporters “Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh assassinated in Iran” Al Jazeera (online ed, 31 July 2024), Emma Graham-Harrison, Quique Kierszenbaum, Bethan McKern and William Christou “Iran vows revenge after Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh killed in Tehran” The Guardian (online ed, 31 July 2024), Nidal Al-Mughrabi and Parisa Hafezi “Killing of Hamas chief in Iran stirs fears of retaliation” Reuters (online ed, 02 August 2024), Jessie Yeung and Abeer Salman “What we know about the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh” CNN (online ed, 31 July 2024), Abby Sewell “Hamas’ top political leader is killed in Iran in strike that risks triggering all-out regional war” Associated Press (online ed, 01 August 2024), Reuters “Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh assassinated in Iran” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 31 July 2024), Rebecca Armitage, Toby Mann and Basel Hindeleh “An assassination on Iranian soil is a ‘huge, humiliating blow’. This is how it might react” RNZ (online ed, 02 August 2024)
⁹ Guideline 5.2
¹⁰ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹¹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹² Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
¹³ See Higgins and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-002 at [17] and Chapman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-108 at [24] for similar findings