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 about a broadcast on Radio New Zealand National’s Nine to Noon marking one year since the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The broadcast included two interviews conducted by host Kathryn Ryan - one with BBC Middle East editor Sebastian Usher, and the other with Sally Stevenson, an emergency coordinator with Médecins Sans Frontières. The Authority found listeners were alerted to alternative significant viewpoints during Usher’s interview, and Stevenson’s interview was clearly signalled as being from Stevenson’s perspective. Additionally, the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage and, while noting the balance standard is not directed at bias, no material which indicated bias against Israel was identified. The Authority also found it was not inaccurate to state 7 October 2024 marked ‘a year since the beginning of Israel’s retaliation’ and, noting the other media coverage of the conflict, the likelihood of a listener being misled by omission of any of the identified perspectives and context, was significantly reduced. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 8 October 2024 broadcast on Radio New Zealand (RNZ) National’s Nine to Noon included a 17-minute-long segment titled, A year on from October 7. The broadcast included two interviews conducted by host Kathryn Ryan - one with BBC Middle East editor Sebastian Usher, and the other with Sally Stevenson, an emergency coordinator with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). 

[2]  The segment was introduced as follows:

Ryan:              Today marks a year since conflict erupted between Israel and Hamas. On the 7th of October 2023, Hamas took 250 people hostage and killed 1200. It also marks a year since the beginning of Israel's retaliation. And since then, more than 41,000 people in Gaza have been killed and another 96,000 injured. Ceremonies have been held around the world to mark the date and [in] a televised address, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to continue fighting

Usher:             Well, for Israel, obviously it's a very important day to remember what it regards as the greatest tragedy in its history and the worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust. So, at 6.29 in the morning local Israeli time, there were gatherings by people to mark the moment that the attack by Hamas and by other Palestinian militias began and the first siren started to be heard. The president of Israel, Isaac Herzog, was at the site of the Nova Festival - that's where many young festival goers were killed or were taken hostage during the attack. So, there was a ceremony there… And then through the rest of the day, there had been other memorial services in different places, in the kibbutz’s, also where the attacks happened. And this evening, it's culminated really in two big memorial events - one organised by the families of the victims of October the 7th, which has finished just in the last hour or so, and another, which was pre-recorded, which is a state event, which some people say it's pre-recorded so that there could be no sort of intervention by people who went there criticising the government. And we heard voices during some of these memorials from family members of hostages who are still held in Gaza, voicing their dissatisfaction, their anger with the Israeli government. You know, it's been a day of great kind of mourning and solemnity in Israel, as you would expect. But it hasn't prevented its military activities continuing in Lebanon. Within just one hour, there were around 100 attacks that Israel launched in the south of Lebanon against what it said were Hezbollah targets. From the other side, we've seen Hezbollah fire more rockets into Israel. Hamas fired a few rockets in the morning.

[3]  Ryan then asked Usher to address ‘where things are at currently with Israel on various fronts’ because ‘there seems to be a strategy to continue until its stated enemies are basically severely disarmed or severely weakened’. She asked for an explanation of the exit strategy for this conflict, to which Usher said:

Well, I mean, the Israeli government… would say that it does offer an exit strategy, which is essentially if Hezbollah stands down, buys no more rockets, essentially surrenders, and if Hamas does exactly the same thing in Gaza and all of the hostages are released, then it will come to an end. That doesn't speak to what might happen with Iran because, remember, we're expecting any day now, any hour now, possibly, a very strong Israeli response to the last Iranian attack last week on Israel - 180, around 180 ballistic missiles that were fired from Iran. So, I mean, there's no chance at the moment of those things happening. ... In Gaza itself, I mean, we are looking from Hamas figures, from its Health Ministry there, at almost 42,000 people having been killed, a huge number beyond that who have been wounded, and virtually everyone in the territory has been displaced, many of them multiple times. And we've discussed this many times over the course of the conflict. 

…From the Israeli perspective, they see it - the government, the military, see it - as a conflict that is no longer at anywhere near the intensity that it once was. But we've seen just in the last day or two that there was a very big evacuation order issued to people in the north of Gaza... And Israel started moving tanks back up into the north. So, I mean, that shows that Israel still feels that it is confronting enough of a threat from what is left of Hamas to need to still continue to mount quite big military operations now. …Hamas did launch some missiles into Israel today, but they were incredibly limited and small compared to what they were capable of doing a year ago. So, you know, Israel and even the Israeli people would feel that that is a success. The war isn't over there. 

And, of course, from a Palestinian perspective, it is an endless catastrophe which shows no sign of ending. In Lebanon … we may just be at the start of what might develop there. I mean, Israel and Hezbollah, the militant group, the proscribed terrorist group there, have been exchanging missiles, attacks against each other since October the 8th - started by Hezbollah, it has to be said, when they first fired missiles into Israel in support of the Palestinians. And Hezbollah has said that it would stop that operation if there were a ceasefire and Israel were to withdraw its forces from Gaza.

But we saw just last week the first ground incursion by Israeli forces, and we've seen huge airstrikes on southern Lebanon, on the Bekaa Valley, which is the east of Lebanon, and on the southern suburbs of Beirut. And they've gone beyond that now… The south of Lebanon is where, you know, its fighting forces are, and where we've seen combat on the ground taking place between Hezbollah and Israel. …and Israel has eliminated most of the leadership of Hezbollah. But that doesn't mean that it isn't still going to have a very strong capability down in the south fighting on the ground with Israel, and the Bekaa Valley is another base of Hezbollah. But… all of these places have a large population, particularly the southern suburbs, very, very densely populated.

Now, Hezbollah is a Shia organisation… But there are people who live in the southern suburbs… who are from completely different groups. They're Christians, they're Sunni Muslims, Armenians, etc. So, by launching these attacks on Hezbollah, even though Israel insists that these are very precise, there is certainly the chance - and we've seen it happen to a degree, and I think this will only intensify - that other people, other groups in Lebanon will also be hit. And already the Lebanese government is talking about more than a million people who've been displaced. But I mean, my feeling from what I'm hearing, you know, not just as a as a journalist, but also as someone who has family there and many, many friends there, is that it is kind of spreading all the time. And the fear amongst the Lebanese people is that as the Israeli leadership has said from time to time, they are going to be turned potentially into another Gaza.

[4]  Speaking on what Israeli leadership has said publicly about responding to Iran’s missile attack, Usher said:

… They've been saying, as you would expect, that there would be very, very severe consequences for Iran's attack. They haven't specified what that will be but … if we go back a few months to April, there was another Iranian missile attack on Israel, and Israel responded there by hitting military facilities. But it didn’t, in its response, really escalate the situation that much further and it’s…seen as an episode that ended at that moment … I mean, there's no doubt that Israel will respond. I mean, the Prime Minister, the Defence Minister, the military have all promised that this will happen sooner or later. And I think sooner is, you know, what we're expecting. 

[5]  Sally Stevenson then discussed her experience working in southern Gaza:

• ‘It is, or it has been, a year since the war began in Gaza and the situation is undoubtedly catastrophic and getting worse at this point. So, what the population is enduring in terms of living conditions, military activity and strikes, and lack of medical support and services is almost indescribable.’
• MSF are operating largely in southern Gaza. ‘In theory, it's meant to be a protected area. But in practice, no place in Gaza is safe and even as it's called, the humanitarian zone, so we experience strikes and shooting and constantly noise of war.’
• ‘The health system here has been absolutely decimated, as has most of the infrastructure within the Gaza Strip. …  It's cities that are rubble and dust, collapsed buildings as though they've been melted. And this extends to, you know, so much of the infrastructure, including distribution of water, sewerage systems, and, as I mentioned, a very decimated health system…’
• ‘It's everywhere you look. You'll see temporary shelters made of torn cloth, plastic sheeting, if you're lucky, cardboard. There's no running water. There's no sewerage. There's no education… So even in these conditions, what is remarkable is the dignity and the positivity of the Palestinian people. The local staff that we're working with turn up every day, they're highly professional, they're highly experienced and skilled. And whilst they're carrying, obviously, individual grief because every single Palestinian in Gaza is, and a collective tragedy for their people and their culture, it's such a privilege to work with them every day… It's hard work. There's no doubt about that. But our conditions are perfectly fine. And yeah, it's the work that we do. It's vital. It's vital in terms of medical care, but it's also vital in terms of providing dignity to a people that absolutely deserve it.’
• ‘I don't think anybody saw that this was going to go beyond an acute emergency... But yeah, it has and is dragging on. So, MSF is looking at this as a chronic emergency at the moment and preparing ourselves to be here for the longer term. Because even if there was a ceasefire - and there absolutely must be, immediate and enduring - there is so much rehabilitation to happen and so much care to be given… And, you know, the military strikes are unrelenting. The sound in the sky every night of drones, planes, quadcopters, and there's no indication that this is going to change. So, … it's hard for the population. Absolutely. They don't know what's coming next. They don't know when they can return to their homes. They don't know when they'll be able to, you know, go to the shops and buy food that's reasonably priced or send their children to school or go to the doctors without feeling insecure or, you know, suffering this incredible experience.’

The complaint

[6]  Nevan Lancaster complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. The complainant’s key points are summarised below, under the standards we consider most applicable to each point:

Balance

a)    The broadcast was significantly biased against Israel, ‘failing to acknowledge the true nature of the conflict and the actions of the aggressor parties’. It is crucial to ‘present a clear and unbiased picture of the conflict, including the actions of all parties involved’.

b)    In particular, the broadcast did not:

i)      ‘adequately address the fact that Hezbollah launched a devastating attack on Israel immediately following the October 7th incident, escalating the conflict and causing significant casualties’

ii)     give sufficient attention to the ongoing hostage crisis, particularly the children of the Bibas family, nor emphasise that ‘Hamas could end the war by releasing the hostages, but has chosen not to do so’

iii)   adequately explore Iran and Hezbollah’s role in the conflict, entities which ‘bear significant responsibility for the conflict’ yet ‘were portrayed in a more sympathetic light’

iv)   condemn and unequivocally denounce Hamas war crimes, including its use of hospitals as military bases and exploitation of humanitarian aid for the construction of weapons and tunnels

v)    include other context such as the killing of Palestinians by Hamas, the ‘huge mass celebrations’ Gazans took part in on 7 October 2024, and that schools were ‘used to indoctrinate children to hate Jews’ and non-Muslims.

c)    ‘On the anniversary of the worst attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust, it was deeply insensitive to focus solely on the aggressors and ignore the suffering of the Israeli people. The programme should have balanced its coverage to reflect the experience of all sides involved.’

d)    MSF and the BBC should not have been presented as objective when both organisations ‘have been criticised for anti-Israeli biases’. Additionally, MSF has ‘a documented history of anti-Semitic statements and actions’ and should not have been relied on as a source of information, and the BBC has ‘been under fire for false reporting’ and being ‘institutionally biased against Jews and Israel’.

e)    While there has been coverage by RNZ and other media of the ongoing conflict between Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah, there is typically never coverage with a representative for Israel or a Jewish organisation. The vast majority of RNZ’s coverage has been from an anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish perspective.

Accuracy

a)  The points raised under balance also contribute to a breach of the accuracy standard.

b)  The broadcast incorrectly stated that Israel responded immediately to Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack. ‘In reality, Israel refrained from a full-scale response for two weeks, providing Hamas with an opportunity to release the hostages and de-escalate the situation.’

Fairness

a)  The broadcast was unfair to Israel. It failed to include a ‘fair and reasonable response’ from a non-pro-Palestinian agency and did not include a representative of the Israeli government to counter the ‘biased commentators’. Those included in the broadcast were ‘all from agencies that have a long and documented history of anti Israel’ sentiments.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘The BBC Middle East editor and Médecins Sans Frontières' emergency medicine manager are entitled to their view(s) of events in the Middle East and are free to discuss them in the context of a news and current affairs programme.’
• ‘There has been considerable coverage in RNZ’s programmes and news bulletins and in other media, including television and online media, of the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah.’
• The audience were made aware of significant points of view. ‘Israeli viewpoints were presented and discussed and debated throughout the segment.’ For example, the segment quoted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the BBC’s Middle East editor began his contribution by noting the Israeli perspective on the October 7 events.

The standards

[8]  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.

[9]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (Standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ The standard states:⁴

• 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 (give 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.

[10]  The purpose of the fairness standard (Standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁵ The standard states:⁶

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

[11]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[12]  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 and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁷

Balance

[13]  Various criteria must be satisfied before the standard’s requirement to present alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.⁸

[14]  Consistent with our previous decisions,⁹ we consider the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance – the ongoing Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict. Accordingly, the standard applies.

[15]  However, we do not find any breach of the balance standard for the following reasons:

• During the interview with Sebastian Usher, listeners were alerted to alternative significant viewpoints as both Palestinian and Israeli perspectives were presented. Notably, the balance standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁰
• The interview with Sally Stevenson was clearly signalled as being from her perspective. It was not intended to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict.¹¹
• The balance standard reflects New Zealand’s current broadcasting environment, including the proliferation of information available from sources on a vast range of topics. As we have previously recognised,¹² the Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict has been frequently covered in a range of other media, so it is reasonable to expect audiences to be aware of significant context and viewpoints on the issues canvassed in the broadcast.¹³
• While we did not identify any material in the broadcast which indicated bias against Israel, we note the standard does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented without bias.¹⁴

[16]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[17]  The complainant suggests the broadcast breached the accuracy standard by:

a)  claiming Israel responded immediately to Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack, when instead, ‘Israel refrained from a full-scale response for two weeks’, providing Hamas with an opportunity to release the hostages and de-escalate the situation’

b)  inadequately exploring or addressing:

i)  Hezbollah’s launch of ‘a devastating attack on Israel immediately following the October 7th incident, escalating the conflict and causing significant casualties’

ii)  the ongoing hostage crisis

iii)  Hamas’s ability to ‘end the war by releasing the hostages’ but their choice not to do so

iv)  Iran and Hezbollah’s role in the conflict

v)  Hamas’s war crimes, including its use of hospitals as military bases and exploitation of humanitarian aid for the construction of weapons and tunnels

vi)  other context such as the killing of Palestinians by Hamas, the ‘huge mass celebrations’ Gazans took part in on Oct 7th and that schools were ‘used to indoctrinate children to hate Jews and [non-Muslims]’.

[18]  Turning to point (a), it was not inaccurate for the 8 October broadcast to state it has been ‘a year since the beginning of Israel’s retaliation’. It is well documented that Israel responded to Hamas’s October 7 attack that same day by launching a series of air strikes on Gaza.¹⁵

[19]  Regarding point (b), we consider the concerns about an alleged omission of necessary context and listeners not receiving a full picture of the conflict, are more appropriately addressed under the balance standard. They have been considered in our findings under that standard.¹⁶ In any case, we do not agree the absence of further detail on these points rendered the broadcast inaccurate or misleading and note points (b)(i)-(v) were mentioned at various stages of the broadcast at least once. 

[20]  The aspects covered in this item were a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion. It is not possible, nor required, to cover every single detail of an ongoing conflict in each story addressing that conflict. As noted under balance, this conflict has been broadly reported upon 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.¹⁷

[21]  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.

Fairness

[22]  Individuals and organisations have the right to expect they will be dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.¹⁸ The fairness standard ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. We have previously recognised that nations (such as Israel) are not organisations for the purposes of the standard. Accordingly, the fairness standard does not apply to the issues raised by the complainant.¹⁹

Final comments

[23]  The complainant alleged the vast majority of RNZ’s coverage on this topic has been from an anti-Israel and antisemitic perspective. Our jurisdiction does not extend to an assessment of RNZ’s general programming and, noting our findings above, we have no concerns regarding the New Zealand public’s access to the range of perspectives the complainant raises.  

[24]  The complainant’s submissions include some strong, and unsubstantiated, allegations of institutional bias and of ‘pushing the propaganda of terror organisations’. We note the complainant’s disagreement with a broadcaster’s editorial choices is not evidence of a broadcaster’s bias. The broadcasting complaints regime is focused on a programme’s impact and compliance with broadcasting standards, and complaints must be directed at these issues.²⁰

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
22 April 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Lancaster’s original complaint – 12 October 2024

2  RNZ’s decision – 22 October 2024

3  Lancaster’s referral to the Authority – 5 December 2024

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 9 January 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁶ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [9]
⁹ See, for example: Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [11]; Pack-Baldry et al and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [38]; Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [25]; Lafraie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-114 at [14]; and Maasland and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-065 at [13]
¹⁰ Guideline 5.3
¹¹ Guideline 5.4; For a similar finding, see Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [26]
¹² Pack-Baldry et al and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [39]; Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [26]; and Lafraie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-114 at [14]
¹³ For a similar finding, see New Zealand Jewish Council and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-005 at [20]
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁵ Daniel Estrin “Israel launches airstrikes on Gaza after Hamas surprise attacks” NPR (online ed, 7 October 2023); “Israel army launches air attacks on Gaza” Al Jazeera (online ed, 7 October 2023); Jaclyn Diaz and Aya Batrawy “Israel unleashes attack on Gaza as Hamas threatens hostages’ lives” NPR (online ed, 9 October 2023); Bill Hutchinson “Israel-Hamas War: Timeline and key developments” ABC News (online ed, 23 November 2023); Tia Goldenberg and Wafaa Shurafa “Israel declares war, bombards Gaza and battles to dislodge Hamas fighters after surprise attack” AP News (online ed, 9 October 2023); and Michael Drummond “Israel-Hamas war: A timeline of events since the 7 October attacks - and how Iran and Hezbollah became involved" Sky News (online ed, 11 March 2025)
¹⁶ For a similar finding, see Duke and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-068 at [14]
¹⁷ For a similar finding, see Grinwis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-090 at [17]
¹⁸ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁹ For a similar finding, see OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [17]
²⁰ For a similar finding, see Hoadley and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-085 at [18]