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 under the accuracy standard about a Newstalk ZB news item reporting Israel’s bombing of a Gaza City school and included an academic’s perspective on the incident. The complainant argued the broadcast was misleading by not mentioning that the school was (according to Israel) a Hamas command post and therefore a ‘legitimate target’, and by including the academic’s comments. The Authority found the academic’s comments were analysis, comment, or opinion to which the standard does not apply. It also found that choosing to not include Israel’s rationale for the bombing was a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion. The broadcast was not materially inaccurate, and did not give a wrong idea or impression of the facts.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 9pm news bulletin during Newstalk ZB’s 10 August 2024 broadcast included an item concerning the bombing of a Gaza City school by Israel. The item stated:

Newsreader: Another Israeli attack on Gaza is dampening hopes for a ceasefire. Local officials say at least 90 people have been killed and dozens more wounded after the attack on a Gaza City school. The school had been housing displaced Palestinians, who at the time were carrying out their dawn prayers. Australian National University Middle Eastern Studies professor Amin Saikal told the BBC this is the third Israeli attack on a school in the past week alone, leading to scores of innocent children’s deaths. 

Amin Saikal: This basically amounts to an Israeli policy of trying to wipe out the second generation of Gazans so that they are not going to be able to prevail in the future.

The complaint

[2]  Bruce Newburgh complained the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis that the broadcast did not mention Israel’s rationale for the attack. He added:

• The item reported the attack killed children and worshippers during dawn prayers. However, Israel claimed the school was being used as a Hamas command post and that 19 Hamas fighters were killed in the strike. The report in question made no mention of these claims, yet RNZ and BBC coverage of the same incident did.
• Not including Israel’s motive in the broadcast was misleading. Israel’s motive made the school ‘a legitimate war target’. The broadcaster therefore ‘suppressed the item’s main point’ and ‘turned an item of news into propaganda’.
• The segment also included Amin Saikal’s ‘ridiculous’ claim that Israel is attempting to wipe out a generation of Gazans which is a conspiracy theory.

The broadcaster’s response

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

• ‘It was accurate to report that the Israeli military had attacked a school which was being used as a shelter for displaced Palestinians, and that this attack resulted in a significant death and injury toll.’
• The news item did not contain any inaccurate information about the attack. It did not suggest the attack was unprovoked, nor did it contain inaccurate information about the rationale for the attack.
• The item was also not inaccurate by omission. The accuracy standard ‘does not require NewstalkZB to include the rationale for each attack when it is reporting an ongoing military conflict. It is a matter of humanitarian, international law that attacks must target military objectives and not civilians’. Omitting the rationale for the attack offered by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) – i.e. that it was targeting a Hamas command post – did not significantly misinform listeners about the attack.

Jurisdiction

[4]  On referral to the Authority, Newburgh raised both balance and accuracy as relevant standards. However, he did not expressly raise the balance standard in his initial complaint to the broadcaster.

[5]  In limited circumstances, the Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where it can be reasonably implied in the wording and where it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.¹ In this case, while the balance standard might be reasonably implied in the wording of his complaint, we do not consider it is reasonably necessary to properly determine the complaint as:

• The focus of the complaint is that no mention was made of a ‘command post’ and the accuracy standard is capable of addressing arguments that a broadcast is misleading by omission’.
• The balance standard only applies where controversial issues of public importance are ‘discussed’ and short news items simply reporting events or developments generally do not trigger the requirement to present alternative perspectives on issues.

[6]  Accordingly, our decision addresses the accuracy standard only.

The standard

[7]  The accuracy standard² 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. Its purpose is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³

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 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

[10]  The accuracy standard does not apply to the comments made by Amin Saikal, which were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment, or opinion.⁵ The standard is also not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.⁶

[11]  The broadcast was a brief report, lasting 40 seconds, on Israel’s bombing of al-Taba’een school, which was widely reported to have killed and injured a significant number of civilians.⁷ The item correctly stated the school was housing displaced Palestinians and that the strike hit the school during dawn prayers. It did not contain any inaccurate information about the event.

[12]  Further, the item was not inaccurate or materially misleading by omission. It was within NZME’s editorial discretion to choose the focus of its coverage, including whether to mention Israel’s rationale for the bombing in the brief bulletin.⁸ Given the extensive coverage of this incident at the time, NZME’s editorial choice was unlikely to result in listeners being misled.⁹

[13]  In the context, the broadcast was unlikely to significantly misinform or mislead viewers. We have not found actual or potential harm at a level which justifies our intervention. Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
20 November 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Bruce Newburgh’s initial complaint to NZME – 12 August 2024

2  NZME’s decision on the complaint – 27 August 2024

3  Newburgh’s referral to the Authority – 23 September 2024

4  NZME’s further comments – 4 October 2024

5  Newburgh’s further comments – 6 October 2024

6  NZME’s confirmation of no further comment – 1 November 2024

¹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 6.1
⁶ Guideline 6.2
⁷ Barbara Plett Usher and Thomas Mackintosh “Israeli strike in Gaza kills more than 70, hospital head says” BBC (online ed, 11 August 2024); Associated Press “Israeli strike on Gaza school kills at least 80 people, Palestinian officials say” NPR (online ed, 10 August 2024); Nidal Al-Mughrabi “Israeli strike kills nearly 100 in Gaza school refuge, officials say” Reuters (online ed, 11 August 2024); Bethan McKernan “Israel strikes on Gaza school site kill at least 80, Palestinian officials say” The Guardian (online ed, 10 August 2024); Irene Nasser “Israeli strike on mosque and school in Gaza kills scores, sparking international outrage” CNN (online ed, 11 August 2024); “Israeli strike on Gaza school kills more than 100 people” Al Jazeera (online ed, 10 August 2024); Reuters “US ‘deeply concerned’ about Israel’s deadly school hit” NZ Herald (online ed, 11 August 2024); United Nations “UN chief condemns ‘devastating strike’ on Gaza school” (12 August 2024).
⁸ See, for example, Young and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-093 at [19]
⁹ See, for example, White and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-130 at [14]