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 a brief Radio New Zealand (RNZ) News bulletin, reporting regarding violence in Amsterdam surrounding a football match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv, was inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority found the brief, straightforward item did not amount to a ‘discussion’ of a controversial issue for the purposes of the balance standard; and listeners were unlikely to be misled by this single item given RNZ’s and other outlets’ earlier coverage of the events. By the time this item was broadcast, RNZ had already reported the information the complainant wished to be included in several other bulletins the previous evening and earlier the same day. Therefore, the Authority overall did not find any harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A Radio New Zealand News bulletin broadcast at 5pm on 9 November 2024 included a brief report (43 seconds) regarding violence that broke out in Amsterdam surrounding a football match between local team Ajax, and Israeli team, Maccabi Tel Aviv. RNZ reported on the events in several bulletins between 8pm, 8 November 2024 and 12pm, 9 November 2024. In its entirety, the 5pm bulletin reported:

Newsreader: Dutch officials have arrested more than 60 people following violence in Amsterdam against Israeli soccer fans. Groups of young men reportedly rode scooters around the city looking for Maccabi Tel Aviv fans after the match against Ajax on Thursday. This man thinks the violence was planned.

Witness: There’s a lot of people that, they are not Ajax supporters, they are not related to this. They were ready in exactly the places – strategic places – with a bat, with a knife and I think so it was well organised and it’s people from [a] certain age.

Newsreader: Politicians from across Europe have condemned the violence, while Israel says strong action needs to be taken against the perpetrators.

The complaint

[2]  Mario Grinwis complained the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, on the basis:

• The item ‘gave an entirely unbalanced and inaccurate presentation of the events. It did not present the fact that the Israeli football fans had instigated the violence by rampaging through the city earlier that evening and had been entering private properties ripping down Palestinian flags from and around buildings in the city. The Israeli fans had confronted people who had connections with those flags and were vocal in their support for the Israeli Government's genocidal actions in Gaza.’
• ‘None of this was contained within the news story…It lacked even the most basic balance as it provided what seemed [to be] the Israeli narrative entirely’, consistent with reporting over the last 12 months or more (which in the complainant’s view favoured Israel’s position on the war in Gaza).
• ‘Accuracy was woefully lacking’ as reporting by other outlets ‘had major differences to the story presented by Radio New Zealand’.
• ‘Radio New Zealand should present facts to the New Zealand public and not half true, unbalanced narratives.’
• (On referral to the Authority) ‘In the response letter from Radio New Zealand it was suggested that time was a factor in the story possibly not being as I would have preferred to hear. Perhaps that my preference differed from the broadcast product. My preference is for the truth and factual correctness of the story, especially when racial and religious hatreds can be enflamed to such an extent when irresponsible, inaccurate and unbalanced lazy journalism is maintained…’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint, saying:

• ‘The overall topic of the violence before and after the Maccabi Tel Aviv football match… was first covered by RNZ in its 8.00pm bulletin the previous evening [8 November] and featured in several bulletins on the Saturday [9 November]. Different aspects of the violence were covered in those bulletins with particular focus on the plight of Israeli Maccabi supporters who appear to have been targeted after the completion of the game.’
• ‘…in the brief amount of time available in any hourly news bulletin, it is simply not possible, nor required by the standards, to cover every aspect of a story in each bulletin. That is what occurred on this occasion and while it may have been your preference that all aspects of the story were covered, that is not required nor achievable in the limited time available.’

The standards

[4]  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.¹ The standard states:²

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.

[5] The accuracy standard (Standard 6) states:

Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:

• is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
• does not materially mislead the audience by giving a wrong idea or impression of the facts.

Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Our analysis

[6]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. For context, we also requested and listened to the bulletins cited in RNZ’s decision on the complaint, from 8 and 9 November 2024.

[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,³ in light of that harm.

Balance

[8]  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, which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.⁴

[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. However, the balance standard and previous Authority decisions recognise that brief news reports, including as information comes to light in the context of a developing story, may not constitute a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard.⁵ This was a straightforward, approximately 43-second report on:

• the number of arrests made by Dutch officials following the violence
• one witness’s opinion the violence was ‘planned’
• European politicians’ condemnation of the violence
• Israel’s call for strong action to be taken in response.

[10]  We do not consider this amounted to a ‘discussion’ of who was culpable for or who ‘instigated’ the violence, or the underlying causes of the violence. Nor do we think listeners would have expected alternative viewpoints on those questions, within the context of this item. Therefore, the balance standard did not apply. The crux of the complaint is that RNZ left out relevant contextual information – rather than a particular viewpoint on an issue – which we consider is more appropriately addressed under the accuracy standard below.

[11]  Even if we were to find the balance standard applied, the standard allows for balance to be achieved over time in other broadcasts across the period of current interest. The broadcaster is not required to include a range of perspectives, or all angles, within every item covering a particular story. RNZ covered other aspects of the lead-up to the violence that the complainant considered should have been included, in earlier broadcasts, as well as its online coverage on 8 and 9 November 2024, for example:

• ‘…But there are also multiple videos showing a crowd tearing down a Palestinian flag from a street in central Amsterdam with anti-Palestinian chants audible in the background.’ (RNZ News, 9pm, 8 November)
• ‘There are also multiple videos showing a crowd tearing down a Palestinian flag from a street in central Amsterdam with anti-Palestinian chants audible in the background. The sequence of events is not yet certain…’ (RNZ News, 11pm, 8 November; 1am, 9 November)
• ‘Amsterdam's chief of police says the Israeli team’s supporters had earlier attacked a taxi and set fire to a Palestinian flag. Unverified videos on social media also show Israelis chanting against Arabs and Palestinians.’ (RNZ News, 6am, 9 November)
• An online RNZ article on 9 November reported:⁶
  
  ‘Videos on social media showed riot police in action, with some attackers shouting anti-Israeli slurs. Footage also showed Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters chanting anti-Arab slogans before Thursday evening’s match.
  …
  Another verified video showed Maccabi fans setting off flares and chanting “Ole, ole, let the IDF win, we will f*** the Arabs”, referring to the Israel Defence Forces.’

[12]  Additionally, 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.

[13]  For these reasons we find no breach of the balance standard and we do not uphold this part of the complaint.

Accuracy

[14]  The complaint does not suggest that the statements made in the item were inaccurate. Rather, the accuracy complaint focuses on what was not in the item, alleging the item was misleading through omission of other relevant information.

[15]  To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts.’⁷ The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies or materially misleading points. Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect listeners’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁸

[16]  As outlined under balance, the focus of this particular item, lasting only 43 seconds, was the arrests made by Dutch officials following the violence, one witness’s view that the violence was ‘planned’, and very briefly, the reactions up to that date of European politicians (who had condemned the violence) and Israel’s call for strong action in response. This item did not make any reference to the alleged cause(s) or lead-up to the violence, or who was responsible (mentioning only that ‘groups of young men reportedly rode scooters’ around Amsterdam looking for Maccabi fans). Those aspects, and the information the complainant considered to be missing from this item, were, however, mentioned to varying degrees by RNZ across several items since the story broke the previous evening (as outlined in paragraph [11] above).

[17]  The aspects covered in this item were a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion and as noted by RNZ, it was not possible, nor required, to cover every single detail of the story in the context of this very short item. This was a developing story coming out of Europe, with information and additional perspectives being reported as they came to light (signalled in RNZ’s earlier coverage, for example, ‘The sequence of events is not yet clear’). The events were widely reported across other national and international media. In this context, the likelihood of a listener being misled by this single item, taken in isolation, was significantly reduced – given RNZ and other outlets had already reported on different aspects of the developing story.

[18]  We have therefore identified no harm sufficient to justify our intervention in this exercise of RNZ’s freedom of expression. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.

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  Mario Grinwis’s formal complaint – 9 November 2024

2  RNZ’s response to the complaint – 19 November 2024

3  Grinwis’s referral to the Authority – 24 November 2024

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 18 December 2024

¹ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Guideline 5.1
⁵ Guideline 5.1. See also, for example, Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-045 at [10]
⁶ Anthony Deutsch and Bart H Meijer, Reuters “Amsterdam bans demos after ‘anti-semitic squads’ attack Israeli soccer fans” RNZ (online ed, 9 November 2024)
⁷ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
⁸ Guideline 6.2