BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision]

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item included a brief comment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from his first televised address following the deaths of key Hamas leaders which the complainant alleges was in breach of multiple standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint finding it relates to a matter of editorial discretion/personal preference and identified no harm sufficient to outweigh the right to freedom of expression.

Declined to Determine under s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children's Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance and Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  During the 1 August 2024 7am news bulletin on RNZ National, an item aired about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s first televised address since the assassination and death of key Hamas leaders.

The item contained the following information:

Newsreader: The Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, says Israel has delivered crushing blows to all of its enemies in recent days. Mr. Netanyahu's televised address was his first public statement since the political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, was assassinated in Tehran. Hours earlier, a senior Hezbollah commander was killed in Beirut. Mr. Netanyahu says Israel was prepared for all scenarios. 

Netanyahu: There is not a week that goes by with someone says to us [sic], please says to me, finish this war. We've done the most we can. We've exhausted the potential of this war. But I never gave in to those voices and I will not give in to them now. Had we surrendered to those voices, we would have let them continue arming themselves. 

Newsreader: Israel hasn't claimed responsibility for the death of the Hamas leader. 

The complaint

[2]  Parsons complained that the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, children's interests, promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, discrimination and denigration, balance, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis:

• It is offensive and antisocial to promote war criminal excuses and children should not be subject to them.
• ‘The war criminal is a known fascist, so playing his speech without pointing out his crimes is discriminatory against his victims’.
• ‘In regard to the assassination of a political leader, allowing the perpetrator to voice excuses is unbalanced….’
• ‘It is not fair to relatives of those affected to be ‘subjected to such bias while listening to the only publicly funded news broadcast during breakfast’.
• ‘RNZ claims to present new[s] without bias or opinion but seem determined not to acknowledge that the choice of soundbite or the quotient of content are themselves opinionated.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

• RNZ do not promote any particular view on Israel’s military and political ‘machinations’.
• RNZ ‘simply report, in the public interest’, the views expressed by leaders such as Netanyahu.
• The reportage is in line with RNZ’s obligations as a public broadcaster.

Outcome: Declined to Determine

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

[5]  Section 11 (b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint if it considers that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.

[6]  In this case, the Authority considers it is appropriate to exercise its section 11(b) discretion on the following grounds:  

• The Authority recognises that while there is significant benefit in the public understanding the perspectives of both sides in a conflict¹, they do not expect to hear from all sides in a short news item.²
• The complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference as the complainant does not wish to hear comment from Netanyahu.
• In these circumstances, it is not the Authority’s role to intervene in editorial decisions and a determination of this complaint is not a proper use of its time and resources.³

For the above reasons the Authority declined to determine under s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
20 November 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Ben Parsons’ formal complaint – 1 August 2024

2  RNZ’s response to the complaint – 6 August 2024

3  Parsons’ referral to the Authority – 9 August 2024

4  Parsons’ clarification of standards – 29 August 2024  

5  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 19 September 2024

¹ Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd Decision No. 2024-004
² Pack-Baldry et al and TVNZ Decision No. 2024-040
³ Golden and Radio New Zealand Ltd Decision No.2018-097 at [7]