BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld four complaints that interviews on Q+A with Israeli and Palestinian representatives breached multiple broadcasting standards. On 21 April 2024, Jack Tame from Q+A interviewed Ran Yaakoby, the Israeli Ambassador to New Zealand. On 5 May 2024, Q+A interviewed Dr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi, head of the Palestinian Delegation to New Zealand. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims that: statements made by Yaakoby and Tame were inaccurate; Tame did not push back hard enough on Yaakoby; the interviews did not provide balance; the 21 April interview was unfair to Hamas, offensive, and discriminatory. The Authority did not uphold complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis: the relevant points concerned opinion to which the standard does not apply; reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy; any harm was outweighed by freedom of expression; or the points were not materially inaccurate. The balance standard was not breached due to the widespread reporting of significant perspectives on the conflict and because the interviews were each clearly signalled as providing the interviewees’ perspectives. The Authority found content in the 21 April interview was not unfair to Hamas, would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience, and did not reach the high threshold required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also noted the high public interest in current affairs coverage of the Israel/Hamas conflict and the valuable expression contained in the interviews, finding any harm caused by the relevant broadcasts was insufficient to outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the audience’s right to hear, and judge for themselves, the arguments of the Israeli government.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, and Fairness

The broadcasts

21 April broadcast

[1]  The 21 April 2024 broadcast of Q+A featured an interview between host Jack Tame and Israeli Ambassador to New Zealand Ran Yaakoby. The interview began with the following introduction:

Today we're doing things a bit differently. With tensions continuing to intensify in the Middle East, much of our show will be dedicated to one interview. The war in Gaza has now been running for more than six months. The fighting was sparked by the October 7th attacks, in which Hamas killed more than 1300 Israelis. Israel's military response and efforts to target Hamas has caused widespread destruction and killed an estimated tens of thousands of Gazans. Of course, Hamas is backed by Iran. But this week, the conflict reached a new milestone as Iran and Israel exchanged direct attacks. On Thursday, I sat down in the Israeli embassy with Israel's ambassador to New Zealand. I began by asking Ran Yaakoby about Iran's strike on Israel.

[2]  The interview lasted for approximately 42 minutes and included the following relevant excerpts:

Discussion of bombing of Iranian consulate in Syria

Ran Yaakoby:   I was surprised, personally, of the fact that Iran acted this time from Iran's territory per se. Iran has been acting for its ideological reasons for over four decades.

Jack Tame:       And via proxies.

Yaakoby:          And via proxies. Not directly. The weapons come from Iran per se but is shipped in various means, also through European ports, to its proxies. Its proxies are unfortunately our neighbours - the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, part of them also in areas of Ramallah, West Bank, Palestinian Authority. We have recently got introduced to the Houthis in Yemen and the few militias in Iraq. We have never experienced an attack that is so massive and directed by Iran. In a way, the puppeteer came to the front.

Tame:             As someone who has worked in diplomacy for many years now, would you agree that it violates international norms for a country to bomb another country's diplomatic quarters?

Yaakoby:        I guess it's all a question of what is the purpose? If you refer to the bombing in Damascus that Israel did not yet assume even responsibility for, then it was a meeting of only military personnel, which by the Geneva Convention turns anything from hospital to diplomatic mission into a legitimate military target. It wasn't the consulate. If you look at the pictures and people try to ignore it, the consulate as we speak still stands surrounded by a fence. And the building next door, outside the perimeter, that was rented by the Revolutionary Guards is the one that was hit. And if people want to dwell into the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rights, it says that the hosting country needs to protect the premises of any diplomatic mission. The fact that it wasn't protected may mean that it wasn't a diplomatic mission, and the responsibility is of the hosting country, Syria, not Israel. There is nowhere any text in any convention about a third party, during war, aiming at the headquarters of the enemy…

Tame:             How would Israel respond if what it considered to be one of its diplomatic premises was bombed by another country?

Yaakoby:        If it was used for perpetrating the killing of other people, or if it's just an innocent, honest to God diplomatic premises? This is the question. Because you have to look at the context, and the context is what was this building first, how it was declared? I don't think it was a diplomatic embassy or consulate or premises. And what was it used for? It was used as the headquarters of only the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. That by some countries list is a terror organisation engaged in war with the West.

Tame:             So, sorry, to my question though. How would Israel react if a premises which it considered to be diplomatic quarters was bombed by another country?

Yaakoby:        I can't tell you. Depends on, again, the circumstances and which is the country -

Tame:             Israel would react though, right?

Discussion of October 7

Tame:             Take us back to October 7th. What do you think, reflecting on the last six months, people outside of Israel perhaps don't appreciate about the scale and the horror of that attack?

Yaakoby:        I don't even know where to begin. For people who are interested in what was going on, on the October 7th, they probably have followed the news and delved a bit into the pictures. Maybe we should begin on the few hours before. On the October 6th, there was a cease fire upon the request of Hamas from the last cycle of violence between Israel and Hamas, which controls Gaza. On the 7th of October, the ceasefire that, in a way, numbed Israel – and this should be definitely investigated post-war - with a very planned, well-practised attack. The Nukhba forces, which is the commando of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, gangs from all over Gaza that have weapons, and just private civilians who followed. Around 1400 people were butchered. And it's a morning show so we will not get down into the details, but some was mentioned in international media. Decapitations. Burning people alive. Rapes. Gang rapes. In two documented cases by the UN investigation team, two cases of necrophilia. On bodies of women. Males were mutilated, children were killed in the front of the parents, parents in front of the children, in so many horrible ways of death. To instil death, to instil terror, which is what a terror group aims at. This is what terror comes from. Exactly that. And then they've retreated, after some gunfights with Israeli armed police and slowly the military storming you, with hundreds of hostages that were taking indiscriminately. Not only soldiers, mostly not soldiers. Women, children. There were a few Holocaust survivors. Sick people were dragged in the wheelchairs. Some bodies, some injured. We know it because we found some, once we entered with our military, we found some of the bodies thrown along the sands of Gaza on the way to the tunnels. And I think the major shock was that those communities that were attacked were communities involved in peaceful activity, not only in their daily lives - farmers, people who just, you know, wanted the bit of an isolation living in the Negev desert, etc. - but many of which were peace activists. Some of the people murdered, some of the people kidnapped were those who took Palestinians – and we had 20 to 30,000 Palestinians coming daily from Gaza to work in Israel - took sick ones, free of charge, to hospitals, stayed by their bedside, demonstrated against the right-wing government in Israel for peace with the Palestinians. There was no mercy. Some of the victims and kidnapped still are Israeli Muslims, Bedouins, Nepalese and Thai and Filipinos and other nationals who came to tour Israel or enjoy Israel in, in a party where young people danced. Just, you know, a sunrise party. 350 young people were butchered and some were kidnapped. The shock and awe still lingers, still lasts. And what shocks more is the declaration of the leadership of Hamas that, given the chance, they will do a second and the third and the fourth and the millionth, I'm quoting, October 7th. And this is I think what is more shocking than anything.  Is it surprising? I don't know, because this is what Iran and Hamas have always said. I'm not sure we were listening very carefully in the West.

Images of the following were shown during these comments by Yaakoby:

• Rockets flying over a city
• Buildings exploding and collapsing
• Bodycam footage of a person running and shooting
• People running through a street covered in rubble and fires
• A man running with an unconscious child
• Several people gesturing through the missing wall of a building
• People running through the desert away from cars

Discussion of deaths in the conflict

Tame:             As you mentioned, almost 1400 Israelis died in that appalling attack on October 7th. How many civilians have died in Gaza from Israel's military incursion?

Yaakoby:        I don't know. I don't know because the only numbers during the fog of war. There's no one really serious going and counting people. What we know is that around 14,000 combatants - what do we call combatants? Because they don't wear a uniform and they embed themselves within a civilian population. We know that 14,000 people who shot at us with our forces were shot back and killed. And we have hundreds, maybe now thousands more of prisoners that are under interrogation in Israel.

Tame:             I understand. So, what would be your best estimate as to the number of civilians who have been killed as a result of Israel's military incursion in Gaza?

Yaakoby:        I don't know, but my guess and your guess are as good as anyone's. [Tame attempting to interrupt] I so am not taking the Hamas estimations. [Tame attempting to interrupt] Because our numbers, when I will give you names of people killed on our side.

Tame:             [attempting to interrupt] I appreciate that -  

Yaakoby:         I will give you the names.And none of what I saw published by the Health Ministry of Hamas [Tame attempting to interrupt] seems more than propaganda. Also, there are few articles that statistically analyse it.

Tame:             [Interrupting] So 34,000. Yeah, right. So, at the moment, this is what this the Gaza Health Ministry -  

Yaakoby:        [Yaakoby attempting to interrupt] we haven't seen names, there are no lists.

Tame:             It says 34,000. It says that 70% of those who have been killed are either women or children. That almost 13,000 children have died in Gaza. Do children in Gaza deserve to die?

Yaakoby:        No. Do children in Israel deserve to die?

Tame:             No.

Yaakoby:        So children don't deserve to die.

Both:               [Both speaking loudly over each other]

Yaakoby:         What was the war in which children did not die?

Tame:              Ambassador. So, 1400 Israelis were butchered on October 7th. By the best estimate we have at the moment, 13,000 children have been killed in Gaza. How can Israel possibly justify a response that kills 13,000 children?

Yaakoby:         Israel operates by the international law and the internationally accepted conventions, including on the Rules of Combat and Rules of War. The nations set and phrased those conditions. On our side, there are lawyers, military lawyers, who sit with the units before and after and during each operation, and sometimes they stop the operation. How many people have died in each operation? I cannot tell you. I don't think anyone can tell you.

Tame:               [Interrupting] The estimates are 13,000.

Yaakoby:          And you don't have to justify, by the way, you don't need to justify, by international law or by the rules of proportionality, that people misunderstand and they take proportionality as you would take it in a sports match, in a rugby game. Are we trying to compare? Should we try to locate a party in Gaza and gang rape and butcher exactly 350 party goers? Are we supposed to enter homes and gang rape the same number of women in Israel, and children who were raped?

Tame:                [Tame attempting to interrupt] So how far then -

Yaakoby: Proportionality is what damage and what casualties can you prevent by a military action. And this is down to, A) the military commander on the ground. He knows what threatens him and to his commanders, who know what is the threat if this military action or activity will not happen.

Tame:              I appreciate what you're saying. You can't do an exact like for like when it comes to proportionality, but you can still consider those fundamental numbers and consider it in a moral context. By the best numbers we have, for every Israeli who was butchered on October 7th, more than ten children have died in Gaza. How far do you believe Israel's moral justification extends? How many children would be too many children?

Discussion of ‘human shields’

Yaakoby:          Because this creature uses civilian population on both sides - it’s a double war crime, shooting from within civilian population onto civilian population. And this method needs to stop now.

Tame:               You're talking about human shields, right?

Yaakoby:          If no one else it willing to- Yes. If no one else - By the way, Israel waited three weeks. No army in the world has given so many warnings, leaflets and SMS message, etc. to allow people to leave the combat zone. If Hamas did not allow them, it's just proof of it’s using its own citizens. How many citizens in Gaza were invited to the 750km of tunnels in Gaza by Hamas?

…

Tame:              So where is the line? How far does the moral justification extend?

Yaakoby:         The line is not a number. Let's agree on one thing. Once Hamas lay down their arms, more children will be saved on both sides. More civilians. And the region at large will calm down. Everything will deescalate. So I think the burden lies on -

Tame:              [Interrupting] I will agree with that point if you will agree with mine. And that is that Israel still has agency. Yes, Hamas might use the civilian population for barbaric purposes. It might shelter within civilian communities. But ultimately Israel is still the one hitting the button. Deciding to discharge a 2,000lb bomb in one of the most densely populated communities in the world. It is still an Israeli munition that is blowing apart a child's body, tearing limbs off it, that is destroying buildings, that is crushing people. Israel has agency in these decisions.

…

Tame:              So why have you killed so many thousands of innocent people.

Yaakoby:         Why? Because for the reason Hamas is hiding under them, not even among them sometimes. Because they choose schools, community centres to shoot rockets from.

Tame:              I understand - it's barbaric, it's barbaric!

Yaakoby:         To stop those rockets, do we have or don't we have, in order to stop rockets from being shot from a school, a UN compound to shoot back? Or are we supposed to die? It will make the world calm when we die?

Tame:              [Interrupting] No. No one. No one is defending. No. [Attempting to interrupt] I don't think anyone is defending the use of human shields.

Yaakoby:         [Interrupting] No - so it's not the casualties? By the way, urban warfare, which is a very special kind of warfare -

Tame:              Sorry, Ambassador, can I just ask a question? Just as a moral exercise, when you consider the human shields issue - again, no one is forgiving Hamas's actions when it comes to the ways in which they embed themselves within civilian populations. But just as a moral exercise here: If a gunman were to take someone important to you, a child that was important to you, and hold a gun to their head. The authorities responded by shooting dead both the gunman and the child. And when you ask them, they say, well, it was a human shield. Would you accept that response?

Yaakoby:         If this is what the best tactical option would be of the commander on the ground? Unfortunately, yes.

Tame:              If your loved one was killed.

Discussion of famine in Gaza

Tame:              So, if Israel has acted so responsibly, how do you explain the famine?

Yaakoby:         I don't think there is famine at large. There are a few pockets.

Tame:              A few pockets of famine?

Yaakoby:         I can show you clips and videos of the markets in south Gaza. In north Gaza, where the IDF has asked people to evacuate, the UN is incapable, simply incapable of there are - as we speak now, and maybe on the weekend there will be more there - over 700 trucks in Gaza, parked within Gaza, that Israel has authorised with food, waiting for the UN to disperse. The UN is incapable of dispersing this food in the same rhythm it has entered, and it has doubled itself from the beginning. Because it's a learning cycle.

Tame:              [Interrupting] Perhaps the aid workers - [Interrupting] perhaps aid workers don't want to be in Gaza because they don't trust they won't be bombed by the IDF.

…

[Later in broadcast]

Yaakoby:         On the day of the ICJ interim ruling, there were about 200 plus trucks coming daily into the Gaza. Yesterday, I just read the statistics, 510 trucks entered Gaza.

Tame:              It's not enough, though, is it?

Yaakoby:         No.

Tame:              I mean if there's still famine in parts of Gaza.

Yaakoby:         As I said, there's no book to run such a case. Boats filled with aid are coming from Cyprus, because we have understood that the ground ways for some parts of Gaza are difficult. About 60% of convoys are being hijacked by Hamas, local forces, gangs, etc. They trade this food, they sell the free food. By the way, they also throw it when it expires instead of giving it on time to the population because what they cannot sell, they don't give.

Tame:              So, you have the port and you have the US airdrops and Israel has opened a -

Yaakoby:        [Interrupting] Again, we are trying to -

Tame:              And a famine is still underway.

Yaakoby: I disagree. I disagree.

Tame:              Well, is from US Aid.

Yaakoby:         A six month of famine would have produced people dying from famine. It's like the story of genocide. The population of - the Palestine population, around the world and in Gaza, Judea, Samaria, has tremendously increased since the erection of the State of Israel ‘48, or since the ‘67 war. Is this a genocide? Then we are really failing at this genocide.

Discussion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling

Tame:              So, you've talked a lot about the efforts that Israel goes to uphold international law throughout the course of this interview. How did you feel when the International Court of Justice ruled it, quote, plausible that Israel's acts could amount to genocide?

Yaakoby:         People have to understand the legal terms. What is plausible in legal terms? Plausible is that if things will not proceed in a certain way, there's a probability, it is plausible, that something will happen. South Africa, by the way, that did not condemn Hamas for the October 7th, that blamed Israel on October 8th publicly for the October 7th event, went to the ICJ. The ICJ was asked to order immediately stop of the war and immediate ceasefire. It did not so because it did not find that Israel is violating any regulation.

Tame:              It did find it plausible that Israel's acts amount to genocide.

Yaakoby:         Yes, because it's not even the result. The case will go on maybe for months. The result is, of the hearing is, that there is no demand for Israel to cease. There is a plausible - of course, every war has a plausibility of a certain act in international crimes. And the only request that came out until now from the ICJ following the South African claim, was to ask Israel to do everything not to commit a genocide and to allow the investigation or the examination of its actions, which is done.

Tame:              The court also asked Israel to, quote, take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic supplies and humanitarian aid. That was two months ago. US Aid says the famine has started since then, so clearly Israel has not held up.

Discussion of the cycle of violence and hate for Israel

Tame:              Half of Gaza's population are children. How do you think the children and surviving family members of innocent civilians who have been killed in Gaza over the last six months, are likely to feel about Israel in the future?

Yaakoby:         About Israel? I guess it will not be different than what they felt until now though. They were fed and educated to hate.

Tame:              Except that they've been bombed now.

Yaakoby:         About the future. You ask about two things: Israel and the future.

Tame:              How will they feel? Yeah.

Yaakoby:         About Israel, I think it will not change much. This is why I don't think Israel should stay there for the long term. I think that they should feel more assured about the future. What can assure them about the future? Not an Israeli presence. Maybe Israeli help, and we are world famous for technologies, etc. We had some plans for a train station, distillation, water distillations, electricity, plants and other things in Gaza. Unfortunately, everything went down under.

Tame:              But absolutely vital to the future is somehow breaking the cycle of violence. You would agree with that, right?

Yaakoby:         How do we do that?

Tame:              So, I just want to understand, why won't Israel's response and approximately 34,000 deaths, approximately 13,000 children's deaths, ultimately lead to more terrorism against Israel?

Yaakoby:         Because the radical elements need to be replaced by those who have managed to, A) accept the neighbourhood with Israel. Because the claim that Israel has no right to exist will always create the next generation trying to erase Israel.

Tame:              Sure. Again though, to my question, how will bombing Gaza stop people from becoming radicalised in the future? If you are - just imagine for a moment - you are a child.

Yaakoby:         [Interrupting] We are not bombing Gaza.

Discussion of expanding settlements

Tame:              Are settlements in the interest of peace? Expanding settlements in the interest of peace?

Yaakoby:         Settlements are not a hindrance to peace because some of the packages discussed were also territories inside Israel as a replacement to territories on which settlements have been built. We may even be able to connect the things that are happening now and happened in ‘48 and later in ‘67. You can't expect to engage in war, which was not declared by Israel - by our militaries, in the case of ‘48, in the case of ’67, by Hamas and Iran behind it in the case of 2023 - and come out losing but winning. Either you lose, either you win. That's the gamble you take when you start a war.

Interview end

Tame:              So, you know, as well as watching our show on TVNZ+, you can find all of our interviews on YouTube, just search NZ Q&A. We've got a playlist there with interviews that relate to the Israel-Hamas conflict.

5 May broadcast

[3]  The 5 May 2024 broadcast of Q+A featured an interview between host Jack Tame and Dr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi, a representative of the Palestinian Authority who heads the General Delegation of Palestine to New Zealand. The interview began with the following introduction:

As we go to air this morning, negotiators for Israel and Hamas are meeting to discuss terms for a ceasefire in Gaza, with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu still threatening to invade Rafah, where most of Gaza's population is sheltering. On Q+A, we're committed to bringing you a range of voices and perspectives on what we know is an incredibly sensitive and contentious issue. There is no Palestinian representative who's a direct equivalent to Israel's ambassador, but Izzat Salah Abdulhadi is a representative of the Palestinian Authority, who heads the general delegation of Palestine to New Zealand. Now, it's important to note, the Palestinian Authority governs the West Bank and is an entirely different entity to Hamas, which governs Gaza. He returned from the Middle East this week, and we sat down together yesterday at his embassy in Canberra.

[4]  The interview lasted approximately 42 minutes and included the following relevant excerpts:

Discussion concerning perspective of October 7 

Tame:              From your perspective, was October 7 terrorism or a legitimate act of war?

Abdulhadi: Look, for us, killing civilians from both sides is not acceptable. It's a violation of international law. Having said that, I explained clearly the historical and political context. You can't just, I mean, talk about the events of October in a political vacuum. You need all the time to provide more information and analysis of what's happening on 7th October. Otherwise, it will be just as if 7 October is the starting of the conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and, I explained, from 1948, illegal occupation and brutal siege on [unintelligible].

Tame:              You have provided us with that context from your perspective. But, to be clear to those, do those attacks on October 7th, specifically the ones that targeted civilians, do they constitute terrorism or, in your view, were they a legitimate act of war?

Abdulhadi:     Look, I think when we talk about terrorism and Hamas as a terrorist organisation, our own reference is the United Nations list. Not necessarily that the Western country, if they prescribed any organisation as terrorist, is a terrorist. I think this is very controversial issue because terrorism, in particular, is discussed internationally, in all - in different forums, including the United Nations. Look, until the present as an example, not one resolution from the United Nations General Assembly recognised or prescribed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. And this is one aspect of the issue. The second aspect is how the Palestinians perceive Hamas. And I don't think that the Palestinians, majority of Palestinians, describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

Tame:              And so then, in your view, as a representative of the Palestinian people, you do not see those acts -

Abdulhadi: Our position is Hamas is not a terrorist organisation.

Tame:              And that those acts therefore were not terrorism.

Abdulhadi: Sorry?

Tame:              And that those acts on October 7th were not terrorism.

Abdulhadi: Look, I think this is also very controversial. Yes. I think, whatever you want, I all the time put it in context.

Tame:              I understand, I understand the context. I'm sorry. I understand the context. Yeah. I mean, there are people who will look at the specific detail of those attacks-

Abdulhadi: Do you recognise, like, as an example, Israel as state terrorist country?

Tame:              This is not a decision for me to make. I'm not an ambassador.

Abdulhadi: I mean, this is what I'm saying. I mean, terrorism, as I mentioned, has different aspects, features, and clarifications.

…

[Later in broadcast]

Tame:              Hamas cannot be tried for genocide because Palestine does not have statehood as such. Do you believe that Hamas' actions on October 7th would also constitute genocide?  

Abdulhadi: Yeah, I mean, this is what the ICC and ICJ, I mean, also suggested. So, Hamas themselves said that they are happy - I mean, are willing, I mean - to be  present in front of any court - ICC, in this context. So, I think, this is across the board process. The implementation of international law should not be selective.

Tame:              So, my question, though, is do you believe Hamas' actions on October 7th constitute genocide?

Abdulhadi: I don't think because we don't have any now description of this as genocide. It's described as terrorist attack, whatever. But nobody now talks about genocide, you know, Hamas genocide -

Tame:              [Interrupting] The targeting of civilian population -

Abdulhadi: [Interrupting] Yeah, but this is a violation maybe of international law, as I mentioned.

Tame:              [Interrupting] You don't believe it's genocide.

Abdulhadi: No, I don't believe it's genocide. Because, I don't think the intent is there, and they are not a state, and it's different case from Israel.

Tame:              [Interrupting] But if they could be tried, as a state would be, under the Genocide Convention, you don't believe that Hamas' actions would constitute genocide. That's a very important point.

Abdulhadi: I don't think they would constitute genocide, no.

Discussion of Hamas’ Charter

Tame:              Israel would argue, it will say that the reason that it exerts so much control over Gaza is that the strip was governed by a group that is explicitly committed to the destruction of the State of Israel, and the blockade was in place effectively to stop Hamas from militarising. What is the alternative, from Israel's perspective? Should they just leave Hamas to militarise as they wish?

Abdulhadi: Let me clarify first that also, a significant portion of Israeli politicians are also aiming to prevent any self-determination for the Palestinian people, and also to destroy this ambition by the Palestinian people to have their own state in 22% [of the area]. For the last 30 years, we failed, I mean, to achieve any outcome of the Oslo process by establishing a Palestinian state. For Hamas, as an example, in 2017 there was a significant change in their own charter, which includes the recognition of a Palestinian state in 1967. And I'm sure that you are watching also the news and also the spokespersons of Hamas these days in which they confirm they all support also to a Palestinian state in 1967. Also, Hamas, in 2017, said that they are their own main focus on Palestine. So, they are not an organic part of the Brotherhood Movement international.

Tame:              So, again, I just want to acknowledge that you're not a spokesperson for Hamas, and it's very important for our viewers to understand. But the original Hamas charter was explicit -

Abdulhadi:      [Interrupting] I do not necessarily agree on their own policy.

Tame:              No, that's fine, and you can explain that point. The original Hamas charter, it's quoted the hadith, 'the hour of judgement shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad' was also a line in the original charter. I mean, Hamas is explicit about their desire to destroy the Israeli state. So, from Israel's perspective, how should they have approached the Gaza situation if Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is committed to Israel's destruction, how could they not exercise a blockade to try and control the militarisation of Hamas?

Abdulhadi: But look, I explained that now Hamas Charter is different, talking about Palestinian State in 1967. But I agree. I mean, it's just in their charter, they're talking about Palestine is Islamic [unintelligible]. Don't forget the historical context again, because Palestine was colonised by Israelis in the 30s. White immigrants coming to Palestine and the British Mandate facilitated the establishment of the Israel State. So, we should all the time remember this context. I think - I don't agree with Hamas now, you know, whatever, of their own vision towards the two-state solution, as an example, not recognition of Israel. I hope that if Hamas support the PLO programme, as a example, in 1988, which includes the establishment of a Palestinian state 1967 borders with right to return of Palestinian refugees. Through all our own discussion with Hamas for the last 15 years to reach unity between Palestinian Authority and Hamas, we stressed all the time our own vision of two-state solution, including a Palestinian state coexist peacefully with Israel, and also to try to convince Hamas of our own strategy of non-violent strategy - internationalisation, unity and steadfastness of our Palestinian people by establishing vibrant institutions.

…

[Later in broadcast]

Tame:              And what would it mean if Hamas were to win that election? Hamas that, as an organisation, is still committed to the destruction of Israel.

Abdulhadi: They should be responsible party. What happened in 2006? They won the elections, and there was sanctions from international community, and Fatah won the presidency at that time.

The complaints

[5]  Simon Pack-Baldry and Karyn Taylor-Moore complained about the 21 April broadcast of Q+A.¹ John Minto on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) and Serena Moran on behalf of Wellington Palestine Group (WPG) complained about both the 21 April and 5 May broadcasts of Q+A.

[6]  All complainants raised the balance and accuracy standards. Pack-Baldry and PSNA also raised the fairness standard. PSNA further raised the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards. We address the submissions under each standard for each broadcast.

[7]  The complainants made lengthy submissions. Key points are summarised below under the standards which we consider most relevant to each issue raised by the complainants.

21 April 2024 broadcast – interview with Israeli Ambassador Ran Yaakoby

Accuracy (All complainants)

• The interview constituted Israeli propaganda, lies, and misinformation. TVNZ should not have given a platform to the views of a country committing genocide. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• The spread of misinformation in this way is the reason the public has limited understanding of Israel’s military occupation and why there is limited pressure to hold Israel to account for its war crimes. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• Tame did not challenge or probe Yaakoby’s comments sufficiently to offset their misleading impact. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• The following content was inaccurate or contributed to a misleading impression of Israel, Palestinians, and relevant events:
  • Events of October 7 - The claims that Hamas committed rape, necrophilia, beheading of babies, burning people alive, and burning bodies are unsubstantiated or have been debunked. They are propaganda created and spread to dehumanise and demonise ‘the enemy’. In particular, claims of rape have been debunked by media outlets² and the UN.³ Israel is blocking the investigations into these matters. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
  • Human shields - The suggestion Hamas was using human shields (reinforced by Tame’s introduction of the term and other comments, including that no one is ‘defending the use of human shields’) has been disputed, for example, in 2015 by Amnesty International.⁴ (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG). In addition:
    (i)  The term ‘proximate shields’ would have been more accurate. (PSNA)
    (ii)  The examples of ‘human shields’ in the NATO report cited by TVNZ⁵ do not meet the definition of human shields under international law. (Taylor-Moore)
    (iii)  TVNZ’s claim the interview did not state Hamas was using human shields in the narrow, legal definition of the term was undermined by the example used by Tame to compare Hamas embedding themselves in population centres to a child being held at gunpoint – which did fit the legal definition. (Taylor-Moore)
    (iv)  The audience would understand the interview’s allegations of Hamas using human shields in the strict legal sense, ie civilians being held in front of a combatant to protect them. They would not understand this to mean combatants embedded in civilian areas. (Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (v)  There was no mention that it is impossible for Hamas to operate in Gaza outside of civilian areas, as the entire region is so densely populated. Hamas is also in civilian areas to protect civilians from Israeli attacks. (Taylor-Moore, WPG)
  • Casualties -
    (i)  The number of Israeli deaths on October 7 was cited as 1300 and 1400 throughout the interview, when the official number given is 1200. (Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (ii)  It was inaccurate to suggest Hamas killed ‘more than 1300 Israelis’ on October 7 as:
    1.  other groups participated in the October 7 attack (so not all deaths can be attributed to Hamas) (WPG)
    2.  Israel killed some of its own civilians under the ‘Hannibal Directive’, such as by killing Hamas fighters without regard for the lives of Israeli hostages, or intentionally killing hostages. (Pack-Baldry, Taylor-Moore, WPG).⁶
    (iii)  Claims concerning the ratio of civilians to combatants killed by Israeli forces were inaccurate. (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)(iv)  It was suggested Israel had killed 14,000 ‘combatants’ when that figure is likely to include civilians. (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)(v)  Figures from the Gaza Health Ministry concerning civilian casualties were suggested to be unreliable. (Taylor-Moore, WPG)
  • Ability to escape combat zones - The comment that Israel ‘waited three weeks’ for civilians to move away from combat zones was inaccurate, as Gaza was immediately bombed following October 7. (PSNA, WPG)
  • Israeli settlements - The statement that Israeli settlements ‘are not a hindrance to peace’ was incorrect, as they are built on stolen land and the settler colonial project is extremely violent. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
  • Comments about Iran - The interview:
    (i)  misleadingly painted Iran as the aggressor in recent military exchanges (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (ii)  promoted Iran’s issues with Israel as being religious in nature (including through references to Islamic Jihad), which misinforms the public (PSNA)
    (iii)  conflated Iranian resistance to the Iranian government as support for Israel. (PSNA)
  • Cause of hatred - It was inaccurate to suggest Palestinian children are ‘fed and educated to hate’, rather than this occurring through violence perpetrated by Israel. (Taylor-Moore)
  • Compliance with international law - The ambassador inaccurately:
    (i)  dismissed the International Court of Justice’s ruling on the plausibility of a genocide finding as legal terminology (Taylor-Moore)
    (ii)  indicated Israel is acting legally under international law (when investigations by human rights organisations even prior to 2023 confirm that Israel repeatedly breaks the international rule of law) (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (iii)  suggested Palestinian population increases since Israel’s establishment and since the 1967 war meant Israel was not guilty of genocide (Taylor-Moore)
    (iv)  suggested Syria was responsible for the Iranian embassy bombing due to not protecting it (noting Yaakoby’s reference to host country protection obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rights). (WPG)
  • Inaccurate terminology - The language of ‘war’ and ‘self-defence’ cannot be used to describe this asymmetric conflict. Israel cannot claim to be defending themselves from persons living in territory they illegally occupy. (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
  • Famine – The Ambassador inaccurately indicated:
    (i)  there was no widespread famine in Gaza (using ‘videos of markets’ as a talking point to prove there is no famine) (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (ii)  aid cannot reach Northern Gaza due to the ineptitude of aid agencies, rather than deliberate actions of Israel (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (iii)  60% of aid convoys ‘are being hijacked by Hamas, local forces, gangs etc’ and the food sold or thrown away (Pack-Baldry, Taylor-Moore)
    (iv)  there was only one instance of Israel mistakenly killing aid workers and Israel ‘admitted it immediately’. (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
  • Interview approach, format & set -
    (i)  Tame used words such as ‘barbaric’, ‘butchered’, and ‘horror’ to describe the killing of Israelis, but did not use similar language to describe Palestinian deaths. (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (ii)  Tame failed to challenge statements which were not only inaccurate, but also ‘speak to incitement of genocide’. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (iii)  Tame’s leading approach and line of questions allowed the Ambassador to air unchallenged and material inaccuracies (eg concerning use of human shields and proxies). (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (iv)  Tame’s body language demonstrated agreement with the interviewee, through smirks, smiles, and nods. Pushback provided was ‘gentle’. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore)
    (v)  Tame agreed with the Ambassador’s statement that once Hamas put down their arms, there would be peace (acknowledging no other reason for Palestinian resistance, such as settlement expansion). (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (vi)  The interview set, with Israeli and New Zealand flags, incorrectly suggested there is an alliance between Israel and New Zealand. (PSNA, WPG)
    (vii)  Images shown that purported to be of the October 7 attack in Israel were actually images of Gaza. (WPG)
• Omission of the following context, arguments, and other information also contributed to a misleading impression of Israel, Palestinians, and the current conflict:
  • the historical situation of Palestinians or the oppressive government they live under, and context for the events of 1948 and 1967 in the region (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
  • the more immediate reason cited by Hamas for the October 7 attack – Israel’s home confiscations in East Jerusalem (WPG)
  • the background to the Iranian attack on Israel, such as who struck first (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
  • Israel has:
    (i)  intentionally targeted and bombed civilians, including in areas they were told to move to for safety (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore)
    (ii)  committed war crimes through extra-judicial killings, intentional killing of civilians, applying collective punishment, using Palestinian prisoners as human shields, and using starvation and rape as weapons of war (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (iii)  attacked hospitals, ambulances, and medical staff (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (iv)  killed journalists, aid workers, and UN staff (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG
    (v)  tortured, deprived of food, beaten and humiliated people it captured (Pack-Baldry)
    (vi)  created a famine through intentionally blocking aid (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
    (vii)  destroyed critical infrastructure in Gaza. (Pack-Baldry, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• Israel’s political and military leaders have made genocidal statements which ‘are being put into practice’. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• While Israel does not support the Palestinian Authority’s push for UN membership, it is recognised as a state by 139 United Nations countries. (PSNA)
• The interview dwelt extensively on Iran’s presumed relationship with Hamas but did not mention the role of the United States in supporting Israel (including through the provision of military supplies and politico-religious backing). (WPG)

Balance (All complainants)

• Many of the submissions made under accuracy are also relevant in the context of the balance standard.
• The broadcast was biased and did not provide a countering perspective to Yaakoby. Hearing the lies, propaganda, and misinformation in the interview (including as outlined under accuracy above) would not allow the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned understanding of an issue. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• Tame began the interview with a ‘patsy question’ about October 7, allowing the Ambassador to justify Israel’s actions in Gaza. (PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• Tame did not question many of the answers provided by Yaakoby when pushback did occur, and so did not indicate the claims Yaakoby was making were contestable. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• Tame was less aggressive in this interview than others he has conducted. He was notably more aggressive in the interview with Dr Abdulhadi, which the broadcaster claims provided balance for this interview. He did not question Yaakoby over whether Israel was committing genocide, when this was repeatedly asked of Dr Abdulhadi regarding Hamas. The different treatment of the two interviews meant balance could not be provided. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• The interview did not support balance as it reinforced concepts pervasive in Western media, such as Palestinians being threatening or dangerous, Israel having the right to act as they have done, Palestinians having no right to resist, Hamas having genocidal intent, acts of rape and other atrocities on October 7, all of which have been contested or proven false. (Pack-Baldry, PSNA, Taylor-Moore, WPG)
• Balance was not provided by the interview with Dr Abdulhadi because he represents the Palestinian Authority, which is in conflict with Hamas. Therefore, he cannot be expected to provide a perspective on behalf of Hamas. Hamas has not been afforded an opportunity to provide balance. (WPG)
• An Iranian perspective was not provided in regard to discussion of the attack on the Damascus Consulate and has not been provided since. (WPG)

Fairness

• The broadcast was unfair to Hamas through use of inaccurate statements (including as outlined above). (PSNA)
• The broadcast was unfair as Tame did not push back on claims from the Ambassador or provide contextual information. (Pack-Baldry)

Offensive and disturbing content (PSNA)

• The Ambassador was allowed to explain how Israel ‘found loopholes in international law… that allowed for Israel to bomb the building that was next to the Iranian consulate in Syria’. It was offensive for a state representative to be allowed to ‘openly share how they sidestep and undermine international rule of law to commit acts of crime against humanity’.
• Tame’s body language, and that of the Ambassador, was offensive through use of smirks, smiles, and nods, for example.
• It was deeply offensive for Tame to ask the Ambassador to comment on ‘…what people outside of Israel don’t appreciate about the scale and horror of [the October 7] attack?’ without providing any information regarding the context for that attack.

Discrimination and denigration (PSNA)

• The way the interview was presented dehumanised Palestinians and their right to life, safety, and security, including through:
  • leading questions and naïve assumptions
  • describing the conflict as a ‘war’ when Gaza is a territory occupied by the State of Israel
  • describing Israel’s right to ‘self-defence’ which inherently suggests Palestinians do not have the same right to self defence
  • suggesting regional support for Hamas delegitimised any form of self-defence by Palestinians.
• Discussion of ‘loopholes’ which allowed killing (ie the Syrian consulate building bombing) was discriminatory.
• The interview fuelled Islamophobia.

5 May 2024 broadcast – interview with Dr Izzat Abdulhadi

Accuracy & Balance (PSNA, WPG)

• Tame questioned Dr Abdulhadi about Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel, based on wording in a superseded 1988 Hamas charter. This intention was not included in the Hamas’ 2017 charter, which allows for a two-state solution and opposes discrimination based on religious or ethnic identity. This misinforms the audience as to the intentions of Hamas. The justification used by TVNZ - that the charter has not been revoked - is ‘indefensible’. (PSNA, WPG)
• Tame effectively called Dr Abdulhadi a liar by referring to Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel after he made it clear the charter Tame was referring to was out of date. (WPG)

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaints for the following reasons:

21 April 2024 broadcast – interview with Israeli Ambassador Ran Yaakoby

General comments

• Complaints about material the complainants wanted to be included in the interview is a matter of personal preference and, as such, not regulated by broadcasting standards. ‘The interview did not purport to provide a broad examination of all relevant contextual and historical considerations, and we do not agree that this was required or could reasonably have been expected.’
• ‘Body language is not an issue regulated by the Broadcasting Code.’
• Tame’s interviewing style is not a matter of broadcasting standards in and of itself.

Accuracy

• ‘The broadcast did not contain a claim regarding “beheading babies”.’
• Regarding claims made by the Ambassador of deaths, burning bodies, rape, and necrophilia, there are reports of such violence and sexual violence from the UN,⁷ BBC,⁸ and Associated Press.⁹ It was not inaccurate to include this information. The broadcast did not claim rape was used as a weapon of war, and it was accurate to include that sexual violence did occur on October 7.
• Regarding the use of human shields, a NATO report¹⁰ found ‘Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.’ Amnesty International did not find evidence for the use of human shields but had documented ‘Palestinian armed groups [storing] munitions and [firing] indiscriminate rockets from residential areas.’¹¹ The audience’s understanding of the term would not be the strict legal definition, and the broadcast did not claim Hamas was using human shields in accordance with this definition. Even if Hamas operating within civilian areas is a necessity due to the dense population of Gaza, it is still reasonable to hold a view opposing military action in these areas. Comments surrounding human shields were not inaccurate, and Tame pushed back against using this as an excuse, by discussing how Israel still had agency in its decisions to drop bombs in close proximity to civilians.
• The Israeli ambassador’s comments about aid truck deliveries were disputed by Tame, through twice reiterating that famine is occurring in Gaza.
• Tame challenged the Ambassador at length regarding the ICJ ruling that concerns the potential for genocide in Gaza.
• Tame also challenged Yaakoby on multiple other topics, including:
  • Israel’s bombing of Iran’s diplomatic quarters in Syria
  • the scale of civilian casualties in Gaza (including children)
  • Israel making Palestinians hate them through bombing them
  • the suggestion there was ‘no famine at large’, just in ‘pockets’
  • continued settlement expansion in East Jerusalem.
• It was not inaccurate or misleading to use the terms ‘horror’, ‘barbaric’, or ‘butchered’ regarding the October 7 attacks.
• It was not misleading to attribute October 7 deaths to Hamas, noting Human Rights Watch states the 7 October attack was led by Hamas.¹² Yaakoby also listed some of the groups involved in the attack in the interview.
• Footage of destruction in Gaza that was played while discussing the October 7 attacks was a mistake, and was quickly corrected by removing it from YouTube and TVNZ+, and notifying the public of the error through a tweet on X. This correction was in line with the expectation of the accuracy standard and did not breach it for this reason.
• Discussion of the scale of loss of life in Gaza was not misleading, and comments by the Ambassador regarding this were clearly his opinion. Tame used figures from the Gaza Health Ministry several times.
• ‘It is correct that Israel retaliated with airstrikes almost immediately following the October 7 attack. However, the Committee understands the warnings referred to by Mr Yaakoby were in relation to the ground invasion launched on October 27.’ The lack of a challenge on this point was not an endorsement of his claims.
• Use of the term ‘war’ was not inappropriate or misleading.
• Several statements made by Yaakoby were comment, analysis or opinion, including:
  • the favourability of the ratio of civilians to combatants killed
  • the famine situation in Gaza
  • issue with aid trucks entering Gaza
  • whether Israel is committing genocide (in particular, claims regarding the increase in Palestinian population since 1948 and 1967)
  • the consequences of settlement expansion by Israel
  • why some Palestinians hate Israelis
  • whether Israel is following international law
  • specific statements quoted in the complaints, including ‘We could have flattened Gaza in 24 hours’ and ‘I don’t think there is famine at large’.
• News consumers ‘are aware that politicians and representatives of government will present their viewpoints on issues so any statements made by these figures will be viewed with an understanding that they may be politically motivated and from a particular perspective’.
• The issue of the interviewer ‘leading’ or ‘directing’ the interview is not a matter of accuracy or balance and is not unusual. Discussion of Iranian proxies was not misleading.
• Claims Israel killed many of their own citizens have been found to be false.¹³
• Credible sources give the number of deaths on October 7 as being around or over 1269.¹⁴ Tame said, ‘more than 1300 Israelis were killed’, and Yaakoby said around 1400 people were killed. This was inaccurate, but the difference between 1269 and 1300/1400 is not material to viewers overall understanding of the situation. On this basis, the standard was not breached.
• The history of conflict in Israel and Palestine is well-known and has been covered in other TVNZ programmes and other media reporting. The subsequent interview with Dr Abdulhadi also contained extensive historical context.          

Balance 

• ‘While we understand that some viewers may have disagreed with some of Mr Yaakoby’s viewpoints or claims, the interview nevertheless imparted a significant perspective about the Israel-Hamas conflict which ultimately deepened viewer understanding of the issue, thereby strengthening rather than diminishing balance. (The same consideration applies to Q+A’s interview with Izzat Abdulhadi…)’
• The interview approached the issue of the Israel/Hamas conflict from a particular perspective which was clearly signalled to the audience.
• Significant balancing perspectives were presented in the period of current interest, including:
  • The later interview with Dr Izzat Abdulhadi, who provided close to ‘like-for-like’ balance with this interview.
  • ‘An interview with a New Zealander in Israel, Alex Jones, on the increasing mood of militarism after October 7th, and the fading hopes of peace activists.’
  • ‘An interview with New Zealander Chris Tooley who did his Ph.D research on Palestinian self-determination efforts, including significant context of the pre-October 7th environment for Palestinians.’
  • ‘An interview which challenged Green co-leader candidate (at the time) Chlöe Swarbrick on her use of a pro-Palestine chant seen by some of her electorate constituents as being antisemitic, while giving her an opportunity to explain why she continued to use the slogan.’
  • ‘An interview with social work researcher Dr Ritesh Shah about his research work in Gaza and the West Bank, and the imminent warnings of famine and aid being blocked to Palestinian civilians. This interview took place the week before the interview with the Israel ambassador.’
  • ‘An Indira Stewart story covering the diplomatic push Israel has been making into the Pacific, and the support and backlash that has been receiving.’
• Q+A do not rule out interviewing a representative of Iran or Hamas.
• The issue of this conflict has been the subject of significant media coverage in New Zealand. 1News has presented several perspectives from Gaza.¹⁵
• The bombing of Iran’s diplomatic premises was discussed by the interviewer from Iran’s point of view, and the Ambassador’s position was pushed back on by asking him how Israel would react if its diplomatic premises were bombed.

Fairness

• The standard does not apply to Gaza/Palestinians, Iran, or the audience of the programme as these groups are not an individual or organisation.
• It was not unfair to Hamas to refer to the events of October 7 as butchery.
• No inaccuracy or unfairness was caused by situating the interview in the Israeli embassy or featuring the flags of New Zealand or Israel. Conducting interviews in locations provided by the interviewee is common on Q+A.

Offensive and disturbing content

• ‘Q+A is an unclassified news and current affairs programme.’
• ‘News programmes, by their very nature, often contain disturbing or confronting material.’
• While matters such as sexual violence committed on October 7 may be offensive and disturbing, these were not unduly graphic in the context of the programme. Discussion of such matters was not inappropriate in the context of this programme.

Discrimination and denigration

• Hamas is not a section of the community under the standard.
• ‘The Committee disagrees that the 29 April interview dehumanised Palestinians or neglects to mention the plight of Gazans.’
• Discussion of ‘Iran’s support of Hamas would not have led viewers to the conclusion that Hamas lacks its own agency in respect of Israeli occupation’
• ‘Islamic Jihad in this context refers to Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a Palestinian Islamist paramilitary organisation formed in 1981. It is not discriminatory or in breach of this standard to reference the group's name in this discussion.’
• Yaakoby was entitled to express his opinion about the Israel-Hamas conflict.
• ‘We did not identify any material in the interview in which Mr Yaakoby expressed a high level of condemnation of Gazan people, or Palestinians more broadly. To this point it should be noted that Mr Yaakoby states during the interview that he does not hate Palestinian people, and is motivated by conflict resolution, diplomacy and the promotion of regional peace.’

5 May 2024 broadcast – interview with Dr Izzat Abdulhadi

Accuracy

• The line of questioning about points in the Hamas charter concerning the destruction of Israel was reasonable, and the revised Hamas charter did not revoke the prior charter that included this language.

Balance 

• The interview with Abdulhadi was respectful and measured, and he was given extensive opportunity to present his perspective.
• Pursuing an answer for whether genocide was committed on October 7 gave the audience a better understanding of the Palestinian perspective on this matter.

Our analysis

[9]  We have watched the broadcasts 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.¹⁶

[11]  These two broadcasts were interviews with representatives from different sides of an armed conflict with serious implications for the international community, including due to the risk of the conflict’s escalation within the region.

[12]  As the Authority has previously noted, the Israel-Hamas conflict carries high public interest.¹⁷ There was accordingly high public interest in interviews which explored the Israeli position, including its explanation for the humanitarian cost of its military strategy, and the role of Hamas in the conflict. The interviews offered Israeli and Palestinian perspectives on events and there is significant benefit in the public understanding both sides’ perspectives. The free and frank expression of opinions is a hallmark of the right to freedom of expression and of critical importance when it comes to the broadcasting of news and current affairs. This is valuable expression which requires a high level of harm for the Authority to be demonstrably justified in limiting it.

[13]  For the reasons set out below, assessing the likely impact of each broadcast when considered as a whole, we have not identified any harm at a level sufficient to justify our intervention.  

Accuracy

[14]  The purpose of the accuracy standard¹⁸ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹⁹ 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.

[15]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. If it was, the second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[16]  Under this standard, the harm the complainants are concerned about is the risk of misleading the public regarding the conflict between Hamas and Israel (particularly regarding each side’s contribution to that conflict). The complaints reflect the importance of the public having an appropriate understanding of Israel’s actions so Israel can be held to account. Numerous issues were raised under this standard as outlined at paragraph [7]. We have found many of these issues are either not material points in the context of the broadcast²⁰ or do not breach the standard on the basis:

• they relate to analysis, comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply; or
• where the standard does apply:
  • the broadcaster has made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy; or
  • any harm caused by the relevant matter was insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the subject matter and the right to freedom of expression.

[17]  We expand on these three key areas below. Most of the issues raised under this standard related to the 21 April 2024 interview of the Israeli Ambassador. However, we have addressed remaining accuracy issues specific to the 5 May 2024 of Dr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi at paragraphs [33]-[36].

Does the accuracy standard apply to the material in the interview?

[18]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.²¹ An opinion is someone’s view; it is contestable, and others may hold a different view.²² It is not always clear whether a statement is an assertion of fact or an opinion - this will depend on the context, presentation, and how a reasonable listener would perceive the information.²³ In assessing whether a statement was a statement of fact or was analysis, comment or opinion, the following factors may be relevant:²⁴

• the language used
• the type of programme
• the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter
• whether the statement is attributed to someone
• whether evidence or proof is provided.

[19]  In this case, most of the challenged statements are expressed definitively (without suggestion the comment is opinion or speculation). However, for the reasons below, we consider listeners are likely to interpret most of them as analysis, comment or opinion:

• The programme was an interview with a single individual, rather than an in-depth investigatory piece featuring multiple interviewees or experts to establish facts.
• The interviewee was the Israeli Ambassador. Viewers would understand he speaks from the Israeli government’s perspective.
• No evidence was provided for the majority of the Ambassador’s claims.
• The subject matter was the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Viewers can be expected to understand the complex and emotionally charged nature of this conflict and the challenges of obtaining accurate information in wartime situations.

[20]  A reasonable viewer can therefore be expected to understand they are hearing a one-sided, partisan interpretation of the subject matter from the Israeli point of view. We have made similar findings in the past concerning the presentation of a Palestinian perspective.²⁵ For the reasons above, we consider the accuracy standard does not apply to most of the challenged points.

Did the broadcaster make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy?

[21]  To the extent any of the points could be interpreted as statements of fact to which the standard applies, the Authority’s task is not to confirm their accuracy or inaccuracy.²⁶ It is to assess whether the broadcaster has made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy.

[22]  In this case, even if some of the points challenged were unverifiable or ultimately proven incorrect, we found many of the statements were consistent with other credible reporting and would not be readily identified by TVNZ as false.²⁷ We are satisfied TVNZ exercised reasonable efforts in the majority of such cases.

[23]  We did carefully consider whether reasonable efforts had been made to avoid contributing to a misleading impression of the Palestinian/Hamas resistance and the Palestinian people. Our concerns in this respect arose from the collective impact of the following, largely unchallenged, comments, content and omissions (which we consider ultimately reflect on factual matters covered by the accuracy standard):

• the description of the atrocities committed on October 7, including:
  • decapitations, burning people alive, rapes, gang rapes, necrophilia, children killed in front of their parents (and vice versa)
  • Yaakoby’s subsequent emphasis on gang rape and child rape in:
    (i)  the discussion of ‘proportionality’ of response where Yaakoby said, ‘Should we try to locate a party in Gaza and gang rape and butcher exactly 350 party goers? Are we supposed to enter homes and gang rape the same number of women…and children who were raped?’ 
    (ii)  the comment ‘Did children in Israel vote to be raped by Hamas?’

• the comments about Hamas’ use of human shields (unchallenged by Tame, who introduces the term and commences one question with ‘Yes, Hamas might use the civilian population for barbaric purposes…’)
• the statement Palestinian children are ‘fed and educated to hate’
• comments about 60% of aid convoys ‘being hijacked by Hamas, local forces, gangs etc’ who then sell or throw away the ‘free food’ (despite famine risks in the area)
• the lack of context for Palestinian and Hamas resistance - Tame even agreeing with the Ambassador’s statement that once Hamas put down their arms there would be peace (suggesting there was no other reason for Palestinian resistance).

[24]  Some of the Ambassador’s comments were consistent with other media reports, suggesting it was reasonable not to challenge them.²⁸ We sought further comment from TVNZ regarding efforts made to ensure the accuracy of the other comments. TVNZ responded with details of reports they consider support the statements regarding child rape,²⁹ use of human shields,³⁰ Hamas contributing to the hijacking of 60% of aid convoys,³¹ and indoctrination of Palestinian children.³²  However, we note, some of these same reports also highlighted some of the uncertainty, difficulty and challenge of gathering information in such an environment³³ and some of the reports relied on, particularly reports supporting the allegations regarding aid convoy hijacking, post-dated the broadcast.

[25]  Offered an opportunity to comment on TVNZ’s submissions and sources on this point, the complainants did not agree the sources supported an argument that TVNZ had exercised reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The complainants argued:

• The sources cited were not credible, non-partisan or based on evidence (in particular, the reports from United States and Israeli media and commentators).
• Some of the sources post-dated the broadcast so cannot be relied on as justifying reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast.
• Other media had debunked many of the Ambassador’s claims.
• None of the reports TVNZ relied on support an allegation that ‘60%’ of aid convoys are being hijacked ‘by Hamas’.
• The audience was unlikely to appreciate they were hearing ‘the position’ of the Israeli State rather than facts, and more care was required given the way such reports can shape the public’s perception of the conflict.
• In a controversial interview of this nature, such subjects should have been ‘fairly and sufficiently’ researched beforehand so appropriate questions could be asked.
• TVNZ should have offered other background to offset the misleading impression of the Ambassador’s statements (eg about the rape of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers, the ways Israeli children are educated about Arabs, the context for the hijacking of aid convoys and Israeli threats to Palestinians).

[26]  We have previously recognised the importance for broadcasters of striking a balance between informing the public and avoiding being used as a vehicle for propaganda.³⁴ In the context of an interview of this nature, that may include being alert to the potential injection of misleading information so it can be challenged and contextualised in the broadcast.

[27]  In considering whether TVNZ has exercised reasonable efforts in this context, we are conscious the complainants presented many examples of media and other sources refuting statements made in the broadcast. We are also conscious that, for one of the challenged statements, the only contemporaneous evidence TVNZ identified to justify the statement was reports of Israeli allegations.³⁵

[28]  In the circumstances, it may have been preferable for Tame to have challenged more of the Ambassador’s comments. However, we recognise that in a long form interview of this nature, it is impractical to challenge every comment. The interview was already, in our view, far from ‘friendly’. Tame strongly challenged the Ambassador regarding:

• the human cost of Israel’s military strategy, including:
  • contrasting the ‘34,000’ civilians killed in Israel’s military incursion to the number killed in the 7 October attacks
  • emphasising the ‘13,000’ children killed in Gaza
• Israel bearing responsibility for the decision to discharge bombs in densely populated areas (whether or not militants were sheltering in the area)
• the ICJ ruling concerning the potential for genocide in Gaza
• the Ambassador’s suggestion Israel was acting ‘responsibly’
• his efforts to deny there was ‘famine’ in Gaza
• the impact of continued settlement expansion in East Jerusalem
• the importance of breaking the cycle of violence given the likely legacy of Israel’s military action.

[29]  This approach would have contributed to audience impressions of overall credibility and served to mitigate any incorrect impressions created by unchallenged statements.

[30]  Overall, therefore, noting the evidence presented by TVNZ, the challenges of definitively verifying some of the relevant facts and the multiple challenges Tame did make to the Ambassador, we find reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy were also made in respect of the matters outlined in paragraph [23].  

Freedom of expression

[31]  Finally, we note the Israel-Hamas conflict carries high public interest. There was accordingly a high public interest in an interview which offered viewers the opportunity to hear Israel’s perspective, directly from a government representative, as well as its response to the points challenged by Tame. The free and frank expression of opinions is a hallmark of the right to freedom of expression and of critical importance when it comes to the broadcasting of news and current affairs. As outlined in paragraph [10], we may only intervene when limitation of the right to freedom of expression is justified by the level of harm likely to result from a broadcast.

[32]  In this case, we acknowledge the complainant’s concerns regarding the risk and harm of misleading the public regarding the conflict. However, we also consider most viewers are likely to appreciate the Ambassador comes from a particular perspective and that others may have different perspectives. In these circumstances, we consider any potential harm arising from the broadcast of this interview is outweighed by its value and contribution to freedom of expression.

5 May 2024 broadcast – interview with Dr Izzat Abdulhadi

[33]  The complainants alleged the 5 May broadcast was inaccurate as Tame questioned Dr Abdulhadi about Hamas’ intention to destroy Israel when this was not part of the most recent Hamas charter. The broadcast included the following statements:

Tame:              …the strip was governed by a group that is explicitly committed to the destruction of the State of Israel…

Dr Abdulhadi: …In 2017, there was a significant change in their own charter, which includes the recognition of a Palestinian state in 1967…

Tame:             But the original Hamas charter was explicit –

Tame:              …The original Hamas charter, it's quoted the hadith, 'the hour of judgement shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad' was also a line in the original charter. I mean, Hamas is explicit about their desire to destroy the Israeli state…

Dr Abdulhadi: …But look, I explained that now Hamas Charter is different, talking about Palestinian State in 1967.

[34]  We acknowledge that the 2017 Hamas Charter departed from the language and goals outlined in the 1988 Charter.³⁶ However, it does not explicitly recognise the right for Israel to exist.³⁷ As reported by one commentator, Hamas has ‘dropped open pledges to destroy Israel but endorses “armed resistance” — and says it will fight for liberation of all “the land of Palestine”’.³⁸

[35]  For these reasons, we do not consider that Tame’s line of questioning around the intentions of Hamas created any material inaccuracy. We are also conscious that Dr Abdulhadi was able to address the point, making clear to viewers that the Charter had changed.

[36]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the accuracy complaint about the 5 May broadcast.

Balance

[37]  The balance standard³⁹ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁴⁰ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁴¹

[38]  Consistent with our previous decisions,⁴² we consider the broadcasts discussed a controversial issue of public importance (the issue of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict). Accordingly, the standard applies.

[39]  The standard requires the presentation of significant alternative perspectives ‘unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’. As we have previously recognised when dealing with similar issues, the Israel-Hamas conflict is widely covered in a range of other media, so audiences can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.⁴³

[40]  In addition, the interviews were each clearly signalled as providing the perspectives of Ran Yaakoby and Dr Izzat Abdulhadi respectively, rather than claiming to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict.⁴⁴ The broadcast also encouraged the audience to watch Q+A’s playlist on YouTube for more interviews on this topic. Finally, Q+A’s decision to interview both individuals provided balance. We do not consider the fact that Q+A had not yet interviewed representatives of Iran or Hamas means that either broadcast breached the standard.

[41]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaints under this standard, whether considering the broadcasts separately or together.

Fairness

[42]  The fairness standard⁴⁵ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁴⁶ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

[43]  The fairness standard only applies to individuals or organisations.⁴⁷ The complainants alleged the 21 April interview was unfair to Hamas. No specific allegations were made by complainants concerning fair treatment in connection with the 5 May broadcast.

[44]  We have previously found that nations or countries are not ‘organisations’ to which the fairness standard applies⁴⁸ (though government ministries and political parties have been⁴⁹). Hamas is a military organisation as well as the de facto governing body in Gaza.⁵⁰  

[45]  While it is arguable that the standard applies to Hamas, we consider the issues raised regarding statements about Hamas are, in this context, more properly dealt with under accuracy. This is because they are more focused on conveying accurate information or avoiding misleading the audience than upon any unwarranted damage occurring to Hamas’s ‘dignity and reputation’ (which the fairness standard would address).  In the context of a New Zealand broadcast on a matter of such public interest, we consider the harm caused by misleading the public is also more likely to merit restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression than any harm caused to the dignity and reputation of an overseas entity such as Hamas.⁵¹

[46]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaints under this standard but have considered potentially misleading comments regarding Hamas under the accuracy standard.

Offensive and disturbing content

[47]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard⁵² is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.⁵³ The standard takes into account the context of the programme, and the wider context of the broadcast, as well as information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing or listening.

[48]  The complainants only raised issues under this standard in relation to the 21 April interview with the Israeli Ambassador. These were focused on the offensiveness of:

• allowing the Ambassador to discuss use of loopholes in international law to ‘commit acts of crime against humanity’ (ie the bombing at the consulate in Syria)
• Tame asking the Ambassador to share ‘what people outside Israel do not appreciate about the scale and horror of [the October 7] attack’ (without the context of prior Israeli action)
• The use of ‘leading questions’ and ‘naïve assumptions’ in the interview

[49]  Relevant contextual factors in this instance include:

• Q+A is a news and current affairs programme. News and current affairs programmes are not subject to classification.⁵⁴
• Q+A is aimed at an adult audience, and it is unlikely children would be watching unsupervised.
• It was clear from the introduction to the programme that the Israel-Hamas conflict would be discussed, and that only the Israeli Ambassador would be interviewed, and that the entire programme would be devoted to that one interview, thus allowing the audience to exercise choice and control over their viewing.
• An interview such as this was not outside the audience’s expectations for Q+A.
• As outlined above, there was high public interest in this interview.

[50]  Given the sensitivity of the subject matter, we acknowledge aspects of the interview may have been offensive to some. However, in the context above, we do not consider the broadcast seriously violated community standards of taste and decency, or would have disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience of Q+A.

[51]  On this basis, we do not uphold the complaint under this standard.

Discrimination and denigration

[52]  The discrimination and denigration standard⁵⁵ protects against broadcasts which encourage the discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief. The standard only applies to recognised ‘sections of the community’, which is consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993.⁵⁶

[53]  The complaints raise issues of discrimination against Palestinian people as well as the promotion of Islamophobia in relation to the interview of 21 April 2024. Both Palestinian people and Muslim people are ‘sections of the community’ protected under the standard.

[54]  With regard to the Palestinian people, as recognised in our discussion under accuracy, the combination of some of the Ambassador’s comments may have left some with a negative impression of this group. However, guidelines to the standard emphasise that a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary for a finding of breach. Content which has the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes may also be considered.⁵⁷

[55]  We do not consider the interview, regarded as a whole, contained this ‘high level of condemnation’ or reinforcement of stereotypes. This is because Tame’s questioning is sympathetic to the human suffering and plight of Palestinians in the conflict, holding the Ambassador to account through questions such as:

• ‘How many civilians have died in Gaza from Israel's military incursion?’
• ‘…70% of those who have been killed are either women or children. That’s almost 13,000 children who have died in Gaza. Do children in Gaza deserve to die?’
• ‘By the best numbers we have, for every Israeli who was butchered on October 7th, more than ten children have died in Gaza. How far do you believe Israel's moral justification extends? How many children would be too many children?’
• In response to Yaakoby’s comments about Hamas’s presence in civilian populations: ‘But ultimately Israel is still the one hitting the button. Deciding to discharge a 2,000lb bomb in one of the most densely populated communities in the world. It is still an Israeli munition that is blowing apart a child's body, tearing limbs off it, that is destroying buildings, that is crushing people. Israel has agency in these decisions.’  
• ‘So why have you killed so many thousands of innocent people?’
• ‘But just as a moral exercise here: If a gunman were to take someone important to you, a child that was important to you, and hold a gun to their head. The authorities responded by shooting dead both the gunman and the child. And when you ask them, they say, well, it was a human shield. Would you accept that response?’

[56]  In response to Tame’s questions, Yaakoby also said that he did not hate the Palestinian people (‘Absolutely not’).

[57]  In this context, we consider the high threshold of condemnation contemplated under this standard is not met and we do not uphold the complaint with respect to discrimination against the Palestinian people.

[58]  With regard to concerns of Islamophobia, the Ambassador does link Iran and Muslim groups to the Palestinian cause (which he does not convey positively). However, his comments regarding Iran, and references to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad organisation (including its participation in the October 7 attack), to ‘Islamic proxies of Iran’ and to the ‘Islamic Revolution’ are brief and are not focused on the Muslim faith. We accordingly do not consider the high threshold of condemnation contemplated under this standard has been met.  

[59]  On this basis, the standard was not breached.

Conclusion

[60]  As will be apparent from our reasoning, the right to freedom of expression has strongly influenced our decision on these complaints. We consider both interviews had significant value, by allowing discourse and the expression of views about a significant international conflict.

[61]  We do acknowledge the detailed submissions of the complainants and recognise the potential harms they identify, particularly with respect to disputed content in the Yaakoby interview. However, such harms are likely to be mitigated by the extent to which Tame challenged the Ambassador. He may not have challenged every point identified by the complainants, but this was not necessary to give the audience a feel for the credibility of arguments presented. In these circumstances, it is not our role to intervene in editorial decisions regarding the choice of specific points to challenge.

[62]  The subsequent interview of Dr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi would also have mitigated harms identified by the complainants, providing Q+A viewers with a broader understanding of the conflict.

[63]  For the reasons outlined above, we consider any possible harm caused by the relevant broadcasts is insufficient to outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the audience’s right to hear, and judge for themselves, the arguments of the Israeli government.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
12 November 2024    

Appendix

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

Simon Pack-Baldry

1  Simon Pack-Baldry's initial complaint to TVNZ - 24 April 2024

2  TVNZ's decision on Pack-Baldry’s complaint - 21 May 2024

3  Pack-Baldry's early referral to the Authority - 19 May 2024

4  Pack-Baldry's referral to the Authority - 21 May 2024

5  Pack-Baldry confirming standards and further comments on referral to the Authority - 22 May 2024

6  TVNZ confirming no further comments - 6 June 2024

7  Pack-Baldry further comments – 15 August 2024

8  Pack-Baldry response to TVNZ submissions on reasonable efforts – 1 September 2024

9  Pack-Baldry further comments – 10 September 2024

PSNA

10  John Minto's (PSNA) initial complaint to TVNZ - 16 May 2024

11  TVNZ decision on Minto’s complaint - 13 June 2024

12  Minto’s referral to the Authority - 23 June 2024

13  TVNZ confirming no further comments - 10 July 2024

14  PSNA response to TVNZ submissions on reasonable efforts – 1 September 2024

Karyn Taylor-Moore

15  Karyn Taylor-Moore's initial complaint to TVNZ - 26 April 2024

16  TVNZ's decision on Taylor-Moore’s complaint - 4 June 2024

17  Taylor-Moore's referral to the Authority - 25 June 2024

18  TVNZ's comments on Taylor-Moore's referral - 19 July 2024

19  Taylor-Moore’s response to TVNZ’s comments – 29 July 2024

20  TVNZ confirming no further comments – 6 August 2024

21  Taylor-Moore response to TVNZ submissions on reasonable efforts – 7 September 2024

22  Taylor-Moore further comments – 13 September 2024

WPG

23  Serena Moran’s (WPG) complaint to TVNZ - 14 May 2024

24  TVNZ’s OIA Letter to WPG - 30 May 2024

25  TVNZ's decision on the complaint - 11 June 2024

26  Carson’s (on behalf of Moran) (WPG) referral to the Authority - 8 July 2024

27  TVNZ disputing jurisdiction - 22 July 2024

28  WPG providing comments on jurisdiction – 8-9 August 2024

29  TVNZ further submissions – 30 August 2024

30  WPG response to TVNZ submissions (including on reasonable efforts) – 8 September 2024

TVNZ – General

31  TVNZ submissions on reasonable efforts – 30 August 2024

¹ Karyn Taylor-Moore also provided a copy of a complaint about the 5 May broadcast which she indicated had been made to TVNZ. It was received outside the deadline for referral to the Authority so her complaint about the 5 May broadcast cannot be considered. However, we have considered comments in the document provided to the extent relevant to the 21 April broadcast.  
² See for example: Jeremy Scahill, Ryan Grim, Daniel Boguslaw ““BETWEEN THE HAMMER AND THE ANVIL” The Story Behind the New York Times October 7 Exposé” The Intercept (online ed, 28 February 2024)
³ “Mission report: Official visit of the Office of the SRSG-SVC to Israel and the occupied West Bank: 29 January – 14 February 2024” Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (24 March 2024)
⁴ “State of Palestine: Unlawful and deadly: Rocket and mortar attacks by Palestinian armed groups during the 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict” Amnesty International (26 March 2015) <amnesty.org>
⁵ “Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza” NATO (accessed 1 August 2024)
⁶ Hannibal Directive Eric Tlozek, Orly Halpern & Allyson Horn “Israeli forces accused of killing their own citizens under the ‘Hannibal Directive’ during October 7 chaos’ ABC News  (Online ed, 7 September 2024)
⁷ “Reasonable Grounds to Believe Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Occurred in Israel During 7 October Attacks, Senior UN Official Tells Security Council” United Nations (11 March 2024) <press.un.org>
⁸ Joel Gunter “Israel shows Hamas bodycam attack footage to journalists” BBC (online ed, 24 October 2023)
⁹ Edith M. Lederer “A UN envoy says there are ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe Hamas committed sexual violence on Oct. 7” Associated Press (online ed, 5 March 2024); Julia Frankel “Israeli video compilation shows the savagery and ease of Hamas’ attack” Associated Press (online ed, 17 October 2023)
¹⁰ “Hamas’ use of human shields in Gaza” NATO (accessed 1 August 2024)
¹¹ “What violations by Israeli forces have been identified by Amnesty since Operation Protective Edge began?” Amnesty International (16 February 2017) <amnesty.org>
¹² Human Rights Watch (17 July 2024) “Questions and Answers: The Hamas-Led Groups’ October 7, 2023, Assault on Israel: 'Which Palestinian armed groups participated in the October 7 assault?' <www.hrw.org>
¹³ Sean Christensen and Alan Jaffe “Social Media Posts Misrepresent Video of IDF Aircraft Attack” FactCheck (online ed, 28 November 2023); “Israeli inquiry finds Oct 7 hostage likely killed by friendly fire” Reuters (online ed, 6 April 2024)
¹⁴ “An analysis of the 7th of October 2023 casualties in Israel” Action on Armed Violence (20 December 2023) <aoav.org.uk>
¹⁵ Several stories were provided, for example: “Palestinian death toll in West Bank surges amid Israel conflict” 1News (online ed, 23 October 2023); “Israel strikes 2 homes, killing more than 90 Palestinians” 1News (online ed, 24 December 2023); “Thousands sheltering at Gaza City's hospital flee as Israel closes in” 1News (online ed, 11 November 2023); “FIANZ delivers first humanitarian food aid from NZ to Gaza” 1News (online ed, 30 March 2024)
¹⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁷ Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [17]
¹⁸ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
¹⁹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
²⁰ Guideline 6.2 recognises the accuracy standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole. Issues we consider immaterial in the context include those regarding Tame’s choice of language, facial expressions, gestures and interviewing style, and regarding the choice of interview location, including an Israeli and New Zealand flag in the background.
²¹ Guideline 6.1
²² See Buchanan and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-087 at [10]
²³ As above
²⁴ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁵ See, for example, Anderson, The Auckland Jewish Council and Leverton and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2003-028, 2003-029, 2003-030 at [68]
²⁶ See Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [15] for a similar approach.
²⁷ For example regarding number of combatants killed: Brian Bennett “What We Know About the Death Toll in Gaza” Time (online ed, 17 May 2024) See: “Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu repeated this claim on May 12… Netanyahu said that about 30,000 people had been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7, of those he said 14,000 were “combatants” and “around 16,000 civilians have been killed.” There has not yet been any independent confirmation of Israel's estimates. News outlets have previously cited Hamas officials estimating between 6,000 and 8,000 of their fighters have been killed.”; Warnings for civilians: Alice Cuddy “'I’m calling from Israeli intelligence. We have the order to bomb. You have two hours'” BBC (online ed, 8 November 2023) see: ‘Israel is known to have warned Gazans by calling them, texting them and dropping leaflets before bombing.’; Use of lawyers before authorising strikes: See: ‘An Israel Defense Forces military attorney must sign off on every strike after a review of intelligence.’; IDF firing on Israeli civilians: For example Sean Christensen and Alan Jaffe “Social Media Posts Misrepresent Video of IDF Aircraft Attack” FactCheck.org (online ed, 28 November 2023)
²⁸ Sexual violence: “Mission report: Official visit of the Office of the SRSG-SVC to Israel and the occupied West Bank: 29 January – 14 February 2024” Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (24 March 2024) at 12: ‘there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred during the 7 October attacks in multiple locations across Gaza periphery, including rape and gang rape, in at least three locations’; Ellen Ioanes “What the UN report on October 7 sexual violence does — and doesn’t — say” Vox (online ed, 9 March 2024); “October 7: Forensic analysis shows Hamas abuses, many false Israeli claims” Al Jazeera (online ed, 21 March 2024) see ‘The I-Unit also examined claims that widespread sexual violence had occurred on October 7. It concluded that while isolated rapes may have taken place, there was insufficient evidence to support allegations that rape had been “widespread and systematic”.’; Burning bodies/burning alive: “Mission report: Official visit of the Office of the SRSG-SVC to Israel and the occupied West Bank: 29 January – 14 February 2024” Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (24 March 2024) at 6 and 7; Deaths of children in front of parents, vice versa: Paul Sakkal “Israeli children orphaned after watching parents’ murders by Hamas” Sydney Morning Herald (online ed, 7 November 2023); Anna Foster “'Hamas said they wouldn’t shoot, then murdered my daughter’” BBC (online ed, 24 October 2023)
²⁹ Child Rape: Evidence relied on by TVNZ included:  “Mission report: Official visit of the Office of the SRSG-SVC to Israel and the occupied West Bank: 29 January – 14 February 2024” Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (24 March 2024) at 71: ‘Based on the first-hand accounts of released hostages, the mission team received clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualised torture…occurred against some women and children during their time in captivity’; Bethan McKernan "Evidence points to systematic use of rape and sexual violence by Hamas in 7 October attacks" The Guardian (online ed, 18 January 2024) stating, ‘…the Guardian is aware of at least six sexual assaults for which multiple corroborating pieces of evidence exist. Two of those victims, who were murdered, were aged under 18.’; Lucy Williamson "Israel Gaza: Hamas raped and mutilated women on 7 October, BBC hears" BBC (online ed, 6 December 2023) stating, ‘Several people involved in collecting and identifying the bodies of those killed in the attack told us they had seen multiple signs of sexual assault, including broken pelvises, bruises, cuts and tears, and that the victims ranged from children and teenagers to pensioners’.
³⁰ Human Shields: Evidence relied on by TVNZ included “Secretary-General’s press conference on the Middle East” UN Office of the Secretary General (online ed, 06 November 2023) stating, ‘…Hamas and other militants use civilians as human shields and continue to launch rockets indiscriminately towards Israel.’; Raf Casert  "EU nations condemn Hamas for what they describe as use of hospitals, civilians as 'human shields'" AP News (online ed, 14 November 2023) noting, ‘the EU condemns the use of hospitals and civilians as human shields by Hamas.’
³¹ Hamas Hijacking of Aid convoys: The only evidence TVNZ provided on this point which was available at the time of the broadcast concerned evidence of Israel alleging Hamas was stealing aid (see the Israeli spokesperson’s post on  X (https://x.com/EylonALevy/status/1740662862551388530?s=20) and Davison, Nichols, Farge, Rose and Saafan "Destruction, lawlessness and red tape hobble aid as Gazans go hungry" Reuters (online ed, 27 March 2024)). Other evidence relied on (but post-dating the broadcast) included US allegations along these lines (see Mike Glenn "U.S. says Hamas stole aid for Gaza sent through newly opened border crossing" Washington Times  (online ed, 3 May 2024)) and a number of subsequent reports, hinting at the scope of hijacking, uncertainty regarding Hamas’ involvement and the sale or discarding of donated items (for example: Yolande Knell "Inside Gaza aid depot: Food waits as Israel and UN trade blame" BBC (online ed, 22 June 2024) and Karen DeYoung and Miriam Berger "Biden administration's hopes fade for Gaza ceasefire and humanitarian aid" The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 25 June 2024)).
³² Indoctrination of Palestinian children Evidence relied on by TVNZ included the Georg Ekert Institute 'Report on Palestinian Textbooks' and consideration of this report and issue by the UK Parliament (see “Palestinian School Textbooks: EU Review” Hansard (Online ed, 30 June 2021) and IMPACT (Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education) “Written evidence submitted by IMPACT” UK Parliament Committee  (Online ed, October 2023)).
³³ “Mission report: Official visit of the Office of the SRSG-SVC to Israel and the occupied West Bank: 29 January – 14 February 2024 ”Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict (24 March 2024) Additional challenges emerged due to erroneous interpretations of the state of bodies by some volunteer first responders without relevant qualifications and expertise. Some examples include mistaking “postmortem pugilistic posturing” (a ‘boxer-like’ body posture with flexed elbows, clenched fists, spread legs, and flexed knees) due to burn damage as indicative of sexual violence; misinterpreting anal dilatation due to postmortem changes as indicative of anal penetration; and mischaracterizing grazing gunshot wounds to genitalia as targeted genital mutilation using knives at [47]
³⁴ NT and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-028 at [70]
³⁵ See footnote [32] regarding the allegation of Hamas involvement in hijacking aid convoys.
³⁶ See “Doctrine of Hamas” Wilson Center (20 October 2023) <wilsoncenter.org>, specifically ‘First, Hamas accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state separate from Israel —although only provisionally. Its statement on principles and policies said, “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus.” Second, it attempted to distinguish between Jews or Judaism and modern Zionism. Hamas said that its fight was against the “racist, aggressive, colonial and expansionist” Zionist project, Israel, but not against Judaism or Jews. The updated platform also lacked some of the anti-Semitic language of the 1988 charter. Third, the document did not reference the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood, from which Hamas was originally an offshoot.’
³⁷ See “Hamas in 2017: The document in full” Middle East Eye (online ed, 2 May 2017) at clause [18] stating, ‘The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people…’
³⁸ See “Hamas again raises the possibility of a 2-state compromise. Israel and its allies aren’t convinced” The Associated Press (online ed, 26 April 2024). See also clause [25] of the 2017 Charter stating ‘Resisting the occupation with all means and methods is a legitimate right guaranteed by divine laws and by international norms and laws. At the heart of these lies armed resistance, which is regarded as the strategic choice for protecting the principles and the rights of the Palestinian people’ and clause [20] of the 2017 Charter stating, ‘Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea’.
³⁹ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴⁰ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴¹ Guideline 5.1
⁴² See, for example: Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [25]; Maasland and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-065 at [13]
⁴³ We note significant media coverage provided by the complainants and broadcaster, as well as recent findings of the Authority for example Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [26]
⁴⁴ Guideline 5.4
⁴⁵ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴⁶ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁴⁷ Guideline 8.1
⁴⁸ Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057 at [16]; Van Der Merwe and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-072
⁴⁹ Donald and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-033
⁵⁰ Kali Robinson “What Is Hamas?” Council of Foreign Relations (1 August 2024) <cfr.org>
⁵¹ We have previously recognised that the level of potential harm caused by misleading reporting in a New Zealand context regarding overseas persons may not have the same harm or impact (Collie and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No.2021-008 at [15])
⁵² Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁵³ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
⁵⁴ Guideline 1.4
⁵⁵ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵⁶ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 12
⁵⁷ Guideline 4.1