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 series of interviews broadcast on Newshub Nation were unbalanced. The complainant alleged that an Israel Defence Force (IDF) spokesperson was given free rein to repeat propaganda, and while other perspectives were included, none of these were the perspectives of Hamas or a Palestinian spokesperson. The Authority found while the issue of the Israel-Hamas conflict is a controversial issue of public importance, the broadcast included sufficient perspectives on the matter for the purposes of the standard. It also noted that the large volume of news concerning the conflict meant audiences were likely to be aware of alternate perspectives.

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  During the 28 October 2023 broadcast of Newshub Nation, several interviews were included on the topic of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. The programme was also rebroadcast on 29 October 2023.

[2]  During the introduction to the episode, the following commentary was provided:

Coming up, New Zealand is calling for a humanitarian pause in Gaza. We speak to the Israeli Defence Force and a UN worker on the frontlines of this conflict as it intensified overnight… Israel is this morning expanding its ground operations in Gaza. Troops have entered Gaza for a second night. And CNN is reporting a large series of explosions in Gaza City, outgoing tank fire and unusual, intense and sustained military activity for the past few hours. Last night before that incursion began, I spoke to Major Libby Weiss. She is a spokesperson for the Israeli Defence Force in Tel Aviv about whether a full ground invasion is now imminent.  

[3]  The item then included an interview lasting approximately 10 minutes between host Rebecca Wright and Israel Defence Force (IDF) spokesperson Major Libby Weiss, with the following relevant excerpts:

Wright:   I mean, what is the goal? What does it mean to destroy Hamas? And how will you know, I suppose, when you have dismantled Hamas?  

Major Weiss: Well after the events of October 7th, it's very clear to every Israeli that we can no longer live with Hamas as a terror organisation next door to us. We've really adopted a new paradigm in our thinking now, and for us, the understanding is a clear one, and that means that Hamas can never be in any kind of position of power within the Gaza Strip to continue launching attacks against Israelis…we understand that what happened on October 7th was their goal and if given the opportunity they will do that again and will slaughter innocent Israelis at any opportunity that they have.

                …

Wright:   Well, there's the bombardment now, which has been happening has certainly been having an impact in Gaza. The Hamas controlled health ministry there says 6000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed in this bombardment so far. And the UN is reporting that a million people are displaced. The people are trying to evacuate northern Gaza, but they're just not able to and the UN is saying that this is quickly turning there into hell on earth. 

Weiss:     Well, first, I would be very sceptical of any figures that Hamas is putting out. And we have called for several days for the residents in the northern Gaza Strip to move south. That was the message that the IDF provided. You can imagine it's to our operational detriment to be very clear about that. But we are doing it because we are the only party in this conflict that has any interest in minimising the impact on civilians. It is up to Hamas as the sovereign within the Gaza strip to facilitate the movement of civilians away from the areas that we have identified and they are not doing that and it speaks to I think the complete lack of regard that they have for their own civilians…

Wright:   There is growing international pressure, including from our own government here in New Zealand, for a humanitarian pause to the military conflict in Gaza, to establish those humanitarian corridors for water, food, fuel, for example, medicines and other basics of life. So far, Israel is refusing to do that. Why?  

Weiss:     Well, we are facilitating the entrance of humanitarian aid that is coming in. And we know that Hamas has fuel. We know the fuel that was in the strip is being taken by Hamas for their own purposes. But I think it's understandable that we don't want to allow Hamas to have assets that they need to continue to launch terror against Israelis…

Wright:   Well, you will know, Libby, that fuel is becoming critical now. It provides electricity that powers hospitals. It is needed for water and sewerage systems and to allow for clean drinking water. People in Gaza are now drinking contaminated water, it is quickly becoming a humanitarian catastrophe there. Is it realistic, I suppose, to expect Hamas to give that that fuel possibly to those humanitarian agencies? Are they even allowed to take it from Hamas, those international aid agencies there?   

Weiss:     Well, first, it's important to note that food, water and medication is coming into the Gaza Strip. But I think the question of whether it's realistic to expect of Hamas is a question that Hamas needs to answer and acknowledge…

[4]  The item then included an interview lasting approximately 9 minutes between Wright and Hector Sharp from United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), with the following relevant remarks:

Wright:   I spoke to Hector Sharp. He is a Kiwi and he's head of legal at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza. Good morning. Can you first of all, describe the conditions in Gaza right now? 

Sharp:     Sure, the conditions in Gaza are terrible. We have over half a million internally displaced persons, we call them IDPs, sheltering in our facilities. And we are unable to provide them with their basic needs. And then we have also, you know, another 1.5 million in the community that are trying to find places to shelter or sheltering at home. And there is no place that is safe. So that's the safety situation, the sanitation, the overcrowding of the shelters and the lack of basic necessities compounds that to a very, significant humanitarian crisis that we're dealing with. 

Wright:   And we know that fuel is critical to sustain life there right now, and it is running out. It provides clean water, it provides power for hospitals. But that fuel is in very short supply. 

Sharp:     Correct. We have been, we've been short on fuel from the start, and we've done our utmost to ration as we continue to provide services and keep things like desalination plants functioning, bakeries functioning, and, and water wells functioning. But now we're at a crisis point where if we don't get fuel in the next, you know, hours, we will, you know, be in a position where we won't be able to offer, the UN won't be able to offer the services that it needs to the people here… We just have to hope we do not reach that point… To put the gravity of the situation, I have myself visited Al-Shifa hospital, where there are 50,000 people sheltering and thousands of patients who need medical attention, including prematurely born babies. That requires electricity. You cannot run a hospital without electricity. If that electricity goes off for more than a couple of hours, we're looking at a situation when there could be a mass casualty incident there.

…

Wright:   New Zealand and other countries are calling now for a humanitarian pause in this conflict, to allow aid to flow, and people to evacuate from the north. What kind of difference would that make? Would it make a material difference to the situation there?  

Sharp:     …we've always stood very, very loudly and very proudly on the side of international humanitarian law and international law compliance. And therefore, I was surprised to read the statement by the government, by my government, which calls for a humanitarian pause rather than a ceasefire.  

Wright:   You think it wasn't strong enough, Hector? From our government.  

Sharp:     My personal view as a New Zealander, yes. My official view as a UN representative is that we're impartial and we don't get involved in issues of politics.

Wright:   Hector, we've just spoken to the Israeli Defence Force who were still talking about a ground invasion. How is that sitting with people in Gaza right now?   

Sharp:     I think from the start of the conflict, there's been a general level of fear about a ground invasion. I mean, the last ground invasion was 2014 and had, you know, severe humanitarian consequences. So that is a fear. And as I said, we're calling for a ceasefire, which would halt that.

[5]  The item then continued to feature shorter interviews with other people affected by the violence, including a New Zealand medical student with family in Gaza who had lost family and friends in the conflict, a New Zealander living in Israel and the Israeli uncle of a young man held hostage by Hamas. It closed with an interview with Brother Peter Bray, a New Zealander who is vice-chancellor of Bethlehem University in Palestine. He reflected on the cycle of violence and how it would be possible to ‘move out of that’.

The complaint

[6]  Najibullah Lafraie complained that the broadcast breached the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• ‘The programme started with an interview with the spokesperson of the Israeli Defence Force. The interview lasted for about 10 minutes. It was nothing but a piece of propaganda for the Israelis and Zionists to justify their gross violations of international human rights. Only a few challenging questions were posed; and even then the spokesperson was given free rein to repeat their propaganda, without the slightest challenge from the journalist.’
• ‘The principle of "Balance" required the program to interview the spokesperson of Hamas. If that was not an option for some reason, then at least a Palestinian spokesperson, or at least an individual Palestinian. None of that was done, though. The only other person interviewed in that segment was a Kiwi UN employee in Gaza. Even if he was critical of the crimes committed by Israel, his "neutrality" prohibited him from expressing it. His only personal view was a criticism of the NZ government on why it has not called for a ceasefire, rather than just "a humanitarian pose [sic]".’
• The next segment of the programme where Palestinians and Israelis were interviewed should have allocated more time to Palestinian perspectives due to the number of Palestinian casualties when compared to Israeli casualties. While balance is not achieved by a stopwatch, it remains unbalanced to feature more Israeli perspectives than Palestinian.
• Later coverage by Newshub Nation did not balance this broadcast.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  WBD did not uphold Lafraie’s complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘[WBD] agrees that the Broadcast canvassed a controversial issue of public importance and that the issue was discussed in this Broadcast - which are the criteria needed before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The Broadcast presented a thoughtful and considered selection of guests that provided the audience with a variety of different perspectives on the ongoing conflict in Gaza.’
• ‘The issue of conflict in this part of the world is long-standing and ongoing – [WBD] would point out that balance can be achieved within the period of interest. We maintain that the period of interest is still ongoing as the conflict continues.’ ‘[WBD] maintains that viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of a range of views given the extensive and ongoing coverage of this issue, particularly since the increase in tensions in the region since 7 October 2023.’
• ‘[WBD] notes that balance is not achieved by a stopwatch. Just because one side of a debate has more airtime than another does not necessarily lead to a breach of this standard. The standard requires that alternative perspectives are presented, which [WBD] is satisfied this Broadcast did.’

The standard

[8]  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

[9]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[10]  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

[11]  The balance standard states: ‘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’ (emphasis added).

[12]  As reflected in the Codebook commentary to the balance standard:⁵

• A common-sense approach should be taken – the practical reality is that programmes cannot be perfectly balanced, and this is not required.
• The standard and guidelines reflect the present broadcasting environment in New Zealand and the increased flow of information available from sources and on topics of all kinds. Given the proliferation of information available to today’s audiences, complaints under this standard will rarely be upheld.

[13]  A standard which required every broadcast to include every perspective, or to allot similar time to each perspective, would be impractical – and would itself amount to an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression. As noted in the above commentary, a practical approach is called for, recognising that today’s audiences do not rely on one media outlet for their information on relevant issues.

[14]  Regarding the broadcast in question, we accept, consistent with our previous decisions,⁶ that it discussed a controversial issue of public importance (the issue of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict). Accordingly, the standard applies. However, we consider the programme both:

• presented significant points of view; and
• addressed an issue in respect of which the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[15]  The programme included differing perspectives, as outlined in more detail in paragraphs [3] – [5], from a variety of individuals including:

• IDF Spokesperson Major Libby Weiss
• UNRWA Spokesperson Hector Sharp
• A Palestinian student studying in New Zealand, who has family living in Gaza, and had lost family and friends in the conflict
• A New Zealander living in Israel with her family
• The Israeli uncle of a young man kidnapped by Hamas
• Brother Peter Bray, a New Zealander who is Vice-Chancellor of Bethlehem University in Palestine.

[16]  To the extent the IDF spokesperson may have been given ‘free rein’ to talk, that is a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion (as long as what is said does not itself breach broadcasting standards). We do not agree that the IDF’s spokesperson’s interview proceeded ‘without the slightest challenge’ or that there were insufficient ‘challenging questions’. The interviewer raised significant issues such as the number of deaths and the other humanitarian consequences resulting from Israel’s actions. She also emphasised the international pressure for a humanitarian pause to the conflict and challenged the practical reality of Israel’s position (for example, questioning the spokesperson’s proposed solution to the fuel shortage and asking, ‘how will you know…when you have dismantled Hamas?’).

[17]  The standard does not require the broadcast to include an interview with a Hamas or Palestinian spokesperson nor does it require inclusion of an identical number of interviewees from each side. The standard’s focus is not on the nature or number of interviewees but on the different perspectives shared.

[18]  In any case, the audience can be expected to be aware of the major perspectives on the conflict, as it has been the subject of widespread, ongoing coverage, particularly since the events of October 7.⁷ In the ongoing period of interest for this issue, the broadcaster⁸ and other broadcasters⁹ 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.

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

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

Susie Staley
Chair
20 February 2024   

Appendix

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

1  Najibullah Lafraie's formal complaint to WBD - 31 October 2023

2  WBD's decision on the complaint - 27 November 2023

3  Lafraie's referral to the Authority - 12 December 2023

4  WBD confirming no further comments - 18 December 2023

¹ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³ Guideline 5.1
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Commentary, Code of Broadcasting Standard in New Zealand, page 15
⁶ See, for example, Maasland and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-065 at [13]
⁷ Lisette Reymer “Israel-Hamas conflict: Gaza death toll surpasses 25,000” Newshub (online ed, 22 January 2024); Reuters “Israel-Hamas conflict: Hamas releases more Israeli, foreign hostages on second day of Gaza truce” Newshub (online ed, 26 November 2023); Via RNZ “Palestinian ambassador wants New Zealand to 'play a leadership role' to ensure immediate ceasefire in Gaza” Newshub (online ed, 6 November 2023); Via Associated Press “Global day of protests draws pro-Palestinian crowds across US, Europe” 1News (online ed, 14 January 2024); Corazon Miller “'This has to stop' - Palestinians and Israelis in NZ seek peaceful resolution” 1News (online ed, 4 November 2023); “Israel faces pressure over Gaza deaths as fighting rages near hospitals” RNZ (online ed, 11 November 2023)
⁸ Lisette Reymer “Israel-Hamas conflict: Gaza death toll surpasses 25,000” Newshub (online ed, 22 January 2024); Reuters “Israel-Hamas conflict: Hamas releases more Israeli, foreign hostages on second day of Gaza truce” Newshub (online ed, 26 November 2023); Via RNZ “Palestinian ambassador wants New Zealand to 'play a leadership role' to ensure immediate ceasefire in Gaza” Newshub (online ed, 6 November 2023)
⁹ Via Associated Press “Global day of protests draws pro-Palestinian crowds across US, Europe” 1News (online ed, 14 January 2024); Corazon Miller “'This has to stop' - Palestinians and Israelis in NZ seek peaceful resolution” 1News (online ed, 4 November 2023); “Israel faces pressure over Gaza deaths as fighting rages near hospitals” RNZ (online ed, 11 November 2023)