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 broadcast on Radio New Zealand National’s Saturday Morning breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards. The broadcast was an interview of a UNICEF spokesperson and humanitarian worker about her experience living and working in Lebanon amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict. The Authority found the broadcast was clearly signalled as being from the interviewee’s perspective and was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The audience also could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage. Regarding accuracy, the Authority found the likelihood of a listener being misled by omission of any of the identified perspectives and context was significantly reduced, noting other media coverage of the conflict. The Authority also found not referring to Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organisations was not inaccurate, nor material in the context. If the death toll figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry were incorrect, it was not material in the context of the broadcast, and it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on such figures. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 12 October 2024 broadcast of Saturday Morning included an item titled, The humanitarian toll in Lebanon. The 9-minute-long segment centred around an interview with a UNICEF spokesperson and humanitarian worker based in Beirut, Lebanon. Introducing the segment, the Saturday Morning presenter said:

The conflict in the Middle East really started ramping up on October the 7th last year when Hamas launched a stunning attack on Israel, killing 1200 people, and Israel unleashed its military might on Gaza. This week, thousands of people around the world marked the one-year anniversary of that fateful day. But since then, Gaza's Ministry of Health says more than 42,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israel's bombardment. The violence has spilled into Lebanon, where Israeli air strikes and a ground offensive have left more than 2000 killed, according to local officials. With casualties mounting in several hotspots now, many, many people have been forced from their homes. Earlier, I spoke to [the UNICEF spokesperson and humanitarian worker] in Beirut. I began by asking her about the latest strikes in Lebanon, one of which was in central Beirut, which killed 22 people. 

[2]  The interviewee spoke about her experience living and working in Beirut amid ongoing conflict in the Middle East, including the impacts on children, Lebanon’s aid situation, the ‘blanket of fear and tension that carpets the region’, UNICEF’s calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, the current situation in Beirut, concerns about potential escalation and the response of affected communities.

The complaint

[3]  Nevan Lancaster complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. Overall, the broadcast was significantly biased against Israel and failed to provide necessary context and crucial information about the conflict. Key aspects of his complaint are summarised below:

• The broadcast did not mention:
  • the ‘significant number of Hezbollah rocket attacks launched against Israel’. Only after 11 months of these attacks did Israel respond, yet ‘the interviewee made it seem like Israel invaded Lebanon for no reason and ignored the wider context’.
  • any of the victims from the 11 months of Hezbollah rocket attacks
  • over 60,000 Israelis have been forced to evacuate their homes because of the conflict
  • Hamas’s failure to release child hostages
  • use of human shields by Hezbollah and Hamas
  • the Druze attack, which killed 12 Israeli children
  • humanitarian aid is being stolen by Hamas and Hezbollah and ‘sold for profit to finance their weapons and impoverish their populations’
  • Hezbollah is occupying Lebanon on behalf of Iran
  • the failure to enforce UN Resolution 1701, which requires Hezbollah to remain north of the Litani River
  •  that ‘certain Islamic texts call for the genocide of Jews’ and that Hezbollah and Hamas have called for the establishment of a global caliphate.
• Hamas and Hezbollah were not referred to as terrorist organisations.
• The broadcast referenced ‘dubious numbers’ provided by the Ministry of Health, which is run by Hamas and is therefore untrustworthy.
• Suffering endured by Israelis was not adequately recognised.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘The conflict in the Middle East is very widely reported by RNZ programmes and in news bulletins and by other media, daily. The audience is therefore aware of a range of perspectives on the conflict.’
• ‘It is not unbalanced or inaccurate for a news story or current affairs interview to focus on the humanitarian effects of a war or conflict.’
• The interview ‘made clear from its introduction and descriptions that humanitarian considerations were the main focus of discussion’.
• It is not a requirement of the balance standard for ‘each item of coverage of the conflict to present all the significant viewpoints’.

The standards

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

[7]  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

[8]  We have listened to 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 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

[10]  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

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

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

• The programme was not claiming, nor intended, to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The interview was signalled as being from the interviewee’s perspective, and the broadcast was clear from its introduction and presentation that it was focused on the humanitarian impact of the Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon.¹⁰
• 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,¹¹ 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.¹²
• 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.¹³

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

Accuracy

[14]  Most of the complainant’s concerns relate to an alleged omission of necessary context and listeners not receiving a full picture of the conflict. We consider these are more appropriately addressed under the balance standard, and they have been considered in our findings under that standard.¹⁴

[15]  In any case, we do not agree the absence of further detail on these points rendered the broadcast inaccurate or misleading. 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.¹⁵

[16]  The complainant suggested Hamas and Hezbollah should have been referred to as terrorist organisations. We do not agree this was necessary to ensure accuracy. The broadcast was not about Hamas or Hezbollah but about the interviewee’s experience of and perspective on the ongoing conflict. The broadcast referred to Hamas once (during its introduction) in the context of Hamas having ‘launched a stunning attack on Israel, killing 1200 people’. This was not misleading. The broadcast did not mention Hezbollah.¹⁶

[17]  Regarding the broadcast referencing ‘dubious’ figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry, we note the complainant offered no evidence to support the description of any figures as ‘dubious’. Other media, and international organisations such as the United Nations, have recognised the challenges of independently verifying casualty figures but ‘often rely on Gaza Health Ministry figures, as they are seen as the best available’ and are considered reliable ‘given [the Health Ministry’s] access, sources and accuracy in past statements’.¹⁷

[18]  In this case, the broadcast made clear where the figures came from and, if they were in fact inaccurate, we are satisfied:

• any inaccuracy would not be material in the context of a broadcast focused on the humanitarian impacts of the conflict
• it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on death toll figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry.

[19]  RNZ’s choice to report on the humanitarian situation in Lebanon was a matter for its own editorial discretion. For the reasons above, we have identified no harm sufficient to justify our intervention in this exercise of its freedom of expression. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.¹⁸

Fairness

[20]  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. The complainant did not identify an individual or organisation dealt with unfairly. To the extent the broadcast might be argued to be unfair to Israel, we note 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

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 – 12 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 5.4; For a similar finding, see Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [26]
¹¹ 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]
¹² For a similar finding, see New Zealand Jewish Council and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-005 at [20]
¹³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁴ For a similar finding, see Duke and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-068 at [14]
¹⁵ For a similar finding, see Grinwis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-090 at [17]
¹⁶For a similar finding, see Waisbrod and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-012 at [16]
¹⁷ Adam Taylor “Why news outlets and the U.N. rely on Gaza Health Ministry for death tolls” The Washington Post (online ed, 14 May 2024)
¹⁸ For a similar finding, see OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [16]
¹⁹ For a similar finding, see OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [17]