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 TVNZ news report concerning an Israeli military operation in the Occupied West Bank breached the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as the requirement to present additional perspectives is reduced for programmes narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger complex matter, and the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage.  While noting the balance standard is not directed at bias, the Authority also identified no bias in the language used in the broadcast. The Authority also found reasonable viewers were unlikely to be misled by the content, language used or absence of further context.

Not Upheld: Balance and Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A 1News report on 29 August 2024 featured a BBC report on a significant operation conducted by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in four cities in the Occupied West Bank:

Presenter:                                     Overseas, at least ten people have been killed during raids in the West Bank in the biggest Israeli operation there for 20 years. Israeli forces simultaneously entering the cities of Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, and Tubas in what's been called a counter-terrorism strike to dismantle Iranian-supported infrastructure. The BBC's Lucy Williamson reports.

Williamson:                                   It was a message of force delivered quietly at first. Israeli soldiers seeking their targets, street by Palestinian street. By morning, hundreds of troops backed by armoured bulldozers had arrived in the refugee camps of Tulkarm, Nablus, Tubas, Jenin, home to armed Palestinian groups and unarmed civilians. At least ten Palestinians have been killed. Hamas says six of them were its fighters. In Jenin, army vehicles surrounded the city's two main hospitals. Ambulances stopped and checked by military jeeps. Israel's Foreign Minister has urged his government to use Gaza as a model for dealing with armed groups here, saying that Iran was backing them and that this was a war for everything, that Israel must win.

[Footage accompanying Williamson’s report included a clip labelled, ‘Aerial strike on armed terrorists in the area of Far’a’]

Israeli Govt. Spokesperson:         The IDF and our security forces are operating in Tulkarm, Jenin, and other places from which murderous attacks have been launched.

Williamson:                                   But fighters here are still presenting Israel with new tactics and new threats. Israel's army has been targeting the same areas in the same cities, week after week for the past ten months, determined to dismantle the armed Palestinian groups based here. Now it's launched a wider, more coordinated operation across the West Bank on a scale not seen for 20 years.

Red Crescent worker:                   I'm very much worried because it seems there's a new stage, there's a new, well, they are escalating, scaling up their operations. When they talk about evacuating civilians and using the Air Force to bomb the camps, this reminds us of Gaza.

Williamson:                                    The war in Gaza is changing this conflict. An old front creating new fears in the face of a regional war.

Presenter:                                       According to the Palestinian Health Ministry, more than 650 people have been killed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th last year.

The complaint

[2]  Kareana Kee complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards for the following key reasons:

Balance

• The broadcast predominantly reflected the Israeli perspective, ‘frequently describing the operation as a “counter-terrorism strike” and referring to “terrorist strongholds” without providing sufficient context or perspectives from Palestinians’.
• This choice of language frames Palestinians in a negative light and shapes public perception, perpetuating a biased narrative.
• The report failed to mention:
  (a)  the ‘provocations by Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, threatening to build a synagogue at Islam’s third holiest site’
  (b)  Israel’s ‘violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention’ which ‘considers the transfer of an occupying power’s civilian population into the territory it occupies a war crime’
  (c)  international and customary laws recognise Palestinians as an occupied people with the right to resist occupation
  (d)  the International Court of Justice’s ruling ‘mandating that Israel prevent its forces from committing acts of genocide…and allow humanitarian aid into Gaza’, which highlights the severity of Israel’s actions
  (e)  the broader context of the occupation, including decades of land confiscation, military control, restrictions on movement, and suppression of Palestinian voices
  (f)  the Israeli government’s recent announcement regarding official recognition of five more illegal settlements in the West Bank and expansion of existing settlements.
• ‘Soundbites from the Israeli representative emphasised “murderous attacks being launched” reinforcing the prevailing security narrative.’ While a Red Crescent worker was also interviewed, he provided no ‘genuine alternative perspective to challenge the one-sided, security-focused framing of the story’.
• The IDF is shown entering the town with bulldozers, but no mention is made of how bulldozers are used to destroy Palestinian homes and infrastructure to make way for Israeli settlements.
• The story reduced Palestinians to ‘statistics’, ‘victims’ or ‘threats’ when they are ‘political actors engaged in a struggle for self-determination and justice, driven by aspirations for autonomy and recognition, like any people seeking freedom’.
• The omission of crucial context, such as Israel’s ongoing occupation and international rulings, contributed to ‘harmful stereotypes’, resulted in a ‘one-sided’ portrayal, and ‘risks TVNZ being complicit in these grave violations of human rights’.
• In their decision, TVNZ suggested other reports provided broader context, but this segment should be evaluated independently. A broadcast should not rely on unspecified additional coverage to meet standards of balance. No evidence was provided of other stories that contextualised this particular report.

Accuracy

• By ‘failing to present a balanced view of the situation in Palestine’, the broadcast potentially misled the audience on critical aspects of the conflict.
• The use of security-focused language, such as ‘terrorist strongholds’, led to a ‘simplified narrative that did not adequately reflect the complexities of the situation’.
• Key issues included:
  (a)  presenting Israeli actions as justified without clarifying the nature of the ‘Iranian Supported Infrastructure’ targeted during Israel’s raids and no evidence was provided to suggest such infrastructure posed a threat
  (b)  omission of context regarding ‘the potential use of bulldozers in violation of the Geneva Convention’ noting ‘Israel’s well documented history of destroying vital infrastructure and causing environmental and economic damage to Palestinian communities’
  (c)  the lack of context (including regarding issues under review by the International Court of Justice) resulted in ‘complex geopolitical and humanitarian issues’ being treated as ‘mere security operations’.
• The broadcast concludes by stating the number of people killed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the October 7th attack, ‘implying that the situation began with Hamas’s actions in Gaza on that date’.

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

• The story primarily focused on the significant operation conducted by the IDF in four cities in the Occupied West Bank, an event described as ‘the largest of its kind in 20 years’. The report highlighted this development as the central news event, providing extensive coverage of the raids.
• While the story’s focus was on the IDF's operations, it did include perspectives from Palestinians, both explicitly and implicitly. The inclusion of comments from Younis Al Khatib, a Palestinian representative, offered a direct Palestinian viewpoint.
• In addition, the report provided further context to the situation, including the following elements:
  (a)  Contextualisation of Palestinian life: The locations targeted by the IDF were refugee camps, which helped contextualise the difficult conditions under which Palestinians live in the West Bank; footage of the areas under attack highlighted widespread destruction, particularly of housing and infrastructure, underscoring the scale of the raids; the narrative addressed the humanitarian consequences of the operations by noting the presence of ‘unarmed civilians’ in the targeted areas and that ‘civilians had been killed’ by the raids; the inclusion of casualty figures from the Palestinian Health Ministry further emphasised the human toll of the ongoing violence in the region since October 7.
  (b)  International law and Israeli reaction: The absence of coverage related to actions by Israel's National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and the potential violations of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, is noted. However, the report in question was focused on the immediate circumstances of a particular IDF operation in the West Bank, specifically its largest operation in 20 years.  While these additional issues raised are indeed significant within the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, they were not directly relevant to the specific topic of the 29 August story.
  (c)  Footage favoured the IDF: The report did not aim to make any judgment on the 'morality' of the operations. The footage featuring the IDF was shown to contextualise the military's activities in the areas of Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, and Tubas, where significant destruction had already occurred. While the report included visual documentation of these areas, it also conveyed at least ten Palestinians had been killed in the airstrikes and the IDF had restricted access to critical medical facilities.
• The focus of the report was the immediate events surrounding the operation, rather than delving into a broader discussion of Israel's long-standing occupation of Palestinian territories which, while relevant, fell outside the specific scope of the report.
• The report adhered to editorial standards for balance, given the focus on the immediate IDF operation. While there are legitimate concerns about the broader context, these issues are being addressed in other reports, as contemplated under the balance standard commentary and guidelines,¹ and it is not unreasonable for the 29 August story to have focused on the particular military operation it covered.
• The broadcast should be considered within the context of other reporting 1News has broadcast about the Israel-Palestine conflict, which it has done almost daily since the 7 October attack, as well as other coverage that viewers are likely to have been exposed to.

Accuracy

• TVNZ considered they had largely addressed accuracy under their discussion of the balance standard and the complaint had not identified a fact in the story that was ‘materially inaccurate’. However, they added further comments:
  (a)  TVNZ disagreed the report failed to provide a counter-narrative to Israel’s claim of ‘self-defence’ as the story was framed in such a way as to ‘allow viewers to form their own understanding, including consideration of Palestinian resistance to the occupation, without explicitly presenting a counter-narrative in every instance’.
  (b)  Regarding the complainant’s concerns about the implication the violence began only with Hamas’ actions on October 7, TVNZ acknowledged the occupation of Palestinian territories and Palestinian resistance are ‘longstanding issues in the broader conflict, but maintains these details are generally well understood by viewers, especially given the context of ongoing media coverage’. 
  (c)  The report’s conclusion, which referenced the number of deaths since October 7, is a reflection of recent developments without diminishing the long-term context of the conflict.
  (d)  The story did not frame Israel as ‘good’ and Palestine as ‘bad’ but simply reported the circumstances of a significant IDF operation in the West Bank.

The standards

[4]  The balance standard² ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.³ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁴

[5]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁵ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁶ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. 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 watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[7]  As a starting point, 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.⁷

[8]  As we have previously recognised, the Israel-Palestine conflict carries high public interest.⁸ There was accordingly high public interest in the reporting of significant developments in the conflict, such as the Israeli operation depicted (reported as the ‘biggest Israeli operation’ in the area in 20 years). For the reasons outlined below, we have identified no likely harm from this broadcast which might reach a level sufficient to justify our intervention.

Balance

[9]  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.⁸

[10]  An issue of public importance is something that would have significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public. A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁰

[11]  Consistent with our previous decisions,⁹ we consider the broadcasts discussed a controversial issue of public importance (the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict). Accordingly, the standard applies.

[12]  However, for the reasons below, we do not agree any further balancing context was required in this broadcast:

• The requirement to present alternative perspectives is reduced or negated in situations like this where it is clear the programme is:¹⁰
  (a)  not intending to be a balanced examination of an issue
  (b)  narrowly focused only on one aspect of a larger complex matter.
• The standard requires the presentation of significant alternative perspectives ‘unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’. As we have previously recognised when dealing with similar issues, the Israel-Palestine conflict is widely covered in a range of other media, so audiences can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage.¹¹

[13]  The complaint under this standard also raises concerns about the choice of language. Kee argues the language used reflects the Israeli perspective and frames Palestinians in a negative light (for example, by ‘frequently describing the operation as a “counter-terrorism strike” and referring to “terrorist strongholds”’). While the balance standard is not directed at bias,¹² we disagree with this assessment of the language used:

• ‘Terrorism’ was said only once in the broadcast, and with a qualifier suggesting it was one side’s perspective (ie ‘what’s been called a counter-terrorism strike’).
• The term ‘terrorist strongholds’ was not used.
• At no stage did the presenter or reporter refer to Hamas or any other Palestinian people as ‘terrorists’. While one item of footage in the broadcast included a tagline ‘Aerial strike on armed terrorists in the area of Far’a’, this was on screen for approximately 5 seconds.
• Those targeted by the Israeli operation were variously described as ‘targets’, ‘armed groups’, ‘armed Palestinian groups’, or Hamas ‘fighters’. These factual terms do not frame Palestinian or Hamas resistance in a negative light.
• The reference to ‘murderous attacks’ was made by an Israeli representative, clearly identified as such. Viewers are likely to understand this representative spoke from a particular perspective.

[14]  For the above reasons, we do not agree the language reflected positively or negatively on either side in the conflict. We also identified no harmful content which might materially offset the broadcast’s value as a source of information about developments in the conflict and we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Accuracy

[15]  The complainant also considers the issues identified under balance (including the use of ‘security-focused language’ and absence of further context to the conflict) contributed to a misleading perspective on the conflict which did not reflect the ‘complexities of the situation’.  For similar reasons to those outlined above, we do not consider the broadcast was likely to mislead viewers regarding the conflict.

[16]  Nor do we consider any additional matters raised by the complainant in relation to accuracy contribute to a misleading impression:

• Reference to ‘Iranian supported infrastructure’: Iranian-supported infrastructure was referenced in the presenter’s introduction where the Israeli operation is referred to as ‘what's been called a counter-terrorism strike to dismantle Iranian-supported infrastructure’. Viewers are likely to interpret this as a factual statement regarding Israel’s stated rationale for the operation. Noting the ‘what’s been called’ qualification, the statement offers no substantive support to the proposition that ‘Iranian-supported infrastructure’ in fact posed a threat.
• Omission of context regarding Israel’s use of bulldozers: The footage of bulldozers, and comment regarding the entry of Israeli troops being ‘backed by armoured bulldozers’ was factual reporting. The broadcast was silent regarding the potential use of the bulldozers. Viewers did not require context to understand the content presented and would not be misled by the absence of context regarding bulldozer use in other situations.
• Mention of casualties since October 7th: In the context of a widely reported, long running conflict of such international significance, reasonable viewers are unlikely to interpret a statement about the number of people killed since the October 7th attack as an indication the conflict began on that date.

[17]  Finally, any impressions viewers might gain from the above matters, from particular language choices or from the absence of further context regarding the conflict, was also offset by other content less favourable to the Israeli position. As outlined in TVNZ’s decision, the broadcast contextualised the Palestinian’s situation, including by:

• indicating locations targeted by the IDF were refugee camps
• noting the presence of unarmed civilians in the targeted areas and that civilians had been killed in the raids
• depicting the widespread destruction of housing and infrastructure
• including the Palestinian Health Ministry’s casualty figures which emphasised the human toll of the conflict.

[18]  On this basis, even this brief broadcast (2.39 minutes) offered some feel for the complexity of the conflict. For these reasons, we do not consider a reasonable viewer is likely to be misled in the manner the complainant describes, and we do not uphold the complaint under accuracy.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
12 February 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Kareana Kee’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 25 September 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision – 22 October 2024

3  Kee’s referral to Authority – 16 November 2024

4  TVNZ confirming no further comment – 3 December 2024  

¹ Guidelines 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Guideline 5.1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁶ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [17]
⁹ See, for example: Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [25]; Maasland and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-065 at [13] and Pack-Baldry et al and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [38]
¹⁰ Guideline 5.4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹¹ See for example Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [26] and Pack-Baldry et al and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [39]
¹² Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15