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 alleging an RNZ National news bulletin addressing airstrikes in Lebanon breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards, including by failing to provide context for the airstrikes. The Authority found the broadcast was a simple report on events rather than a ‘discussion’ of issues to which the balance standard might apply. It found listeners were unlikely to get a misleading impression of events from the report and the fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 25 September 2024, 9am RNZ National news bulletin included an item about Lebanese residents injured in Israeli air strikes:  

Newsreader:              RNZ News at nine am …

Wounded residents in southern Lebanon are filling up hospitals with injuries sustained in Israeli airstrikes across the country. Lebanon's health ministry says more than 560 people, including 50 children, have been killed in the strikes aimed at the militant group Hezbollah. This man, who's receiving hospital treatment in the city of Tyre in the country's south, says an attack struck his home.

Speaker 2:                  [words are translated] 

They hit my home and I was injured along with my daughter and her children. They were injured in their legs and we all got hurt. It's a criminal act by Israel. This is what happened. We are standing firm, God willing. What can we do? It's a fierce enemy.

Newsreader:              The New Zealand government is urging citizens and residents to leave Lebanon while they still can as commercial airlines have begun suspending flights.

The complaint

[2]  OH complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis that:

• The report was unbalanced as it described Lebanese casualties (including children) and quoted a resident describing Israel as ’a fierce enemy’ without providing:
  • context to the air raids
  • equivalent audio featuring an Israeli family who had been harmed.  
• It breached the accuracy standard as the man was quoted without context (eg ongoing missile attacks on Israeli civilians) or ‘verification of his injuries’ portraying a misleading picture of events.
• The report ‘did not reflect fairness, as consistently over the past year there has been little to no reporting on the ongoing suffering on the Israeli side’. 
• ‘…one sided reporting contributes directly to hate and spread of one-sided negatives, which endangers a whole community’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Balance

• It is not possible in a short news item in a bulletin to include every ‘side’ or viewpoint on a conflict and the balance standard does not require it.
• A broadcaster is required to provide balance over the period of the current interest.

Accuracy and Fairness

• It is not inaccurate or misleading to quote an injured person who says their home has been destroyed.
• It is not unfair to quote someone injured in an air strike or to estimate the number of people (and children) killed.
• RNZ news is verified by professional journalists working to industry standards of best practice.

The standards

[4]  The purpose of the balance standard¹ is to ensure 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

[5]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁴ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁵ 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.

[6]  We consider the balance and accuracy standards most relevant to the issues raised by the complainant. However, the fairness standard is addressed briefly at paragraph [16].

Our analysis

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

[8]  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.⁶

[9]  The harm alleged here is that listeners may have been misled by not receiving ‘context’ about the bombings which may, in turn, contribute to the further spread of ‘hate’ and ‘one-sided narratives’.

Balance

[10]  The balance standard requires reasonable efforts to be made to reflect significant perspectives when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are ‘discussed’ in news and current affairs programmes. While Israel’s military offensive may constitute a controversial issue of public importance, we have previously recognised that brief news reports may not constitute a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard.⁷

[11]  The broadcast was a straightforward, approximately 50 seconds long, report on:

• Lebanese residents impacted by Israeli strikes ‘aimed at the militant group Hezbollah’
• the New Zealand government’s call for New Zealanders to leave the country.

[12]  The inclusion of the injured man’s brief comments about Israel did not turn the broadcast into a ‘discussion’ of Israel’s military offensive for the purposes of the balance standard. The broadcast was essentially a simple recounting of events.⁸ In the circumstances, the balance standard did not apply. In any event, given the long-running nature of Israel’s offensive, listeners are likely to understand there is more information available than could be conveyed in a brief news update.

Accuracy

[13]  The complainant argues the broadcast portrayed a misleading picture of events given the omission of context (eg ongoing missile attacks on Israeli civilians) and of any verification of the interviewed man’s injuries.

[14]  To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts.⁹ The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies or materially misleading points. Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.¹⁰

[15]   As outlined under balance, listeners can be expected to appreciate the existence of prior context for the events described and we note the report indicated the attacks were aimed at Hezbollah. Listeners were unlikely to  get a wrong impression of the facts through this brief report and the standard did not require ‘verification’ of the interviewee’s injuries. 

[16]  The broadcaster’s choice to report on the victims of the strikes in Lebanon was a matter for its own editorial discretion. 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.

Fairness

[17]  The fairness standard¹¹ does not apply to the issues raised by the complainant. The purpose of this standard is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹² It 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.¹³ In addition, the standard does not address issues concerning the way facts have been conveyed.¹⁴

For the above reasons the Authority has not upheld the complaint under the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
4 December 2024

Appendix

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

1  OH’s complaint – 25 September 2024

2  RNZ’s response to the complaint – 01 October 2024

3  OH’s referral to the Authority – 03 October 2024

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 09 October 2024

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 Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁷ Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-045 at [10] 
⁸ Guideline 5.4 and see Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-045 at para [10] for a similar finding.
⁹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
¹⁰ Guideline 6.2
¹¹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹² Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹³ Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057 at [16]
¹⁴ As above