BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about Sports Chat on RNZ’s Morning Report, during which the guest commentator briefly summarised violence surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv football match against local Dutch team Ajax in November in Amsterdam, including: ‘the Amsterdam Mayor has come out and said, look, criminals on scooters searched the city for Maccabi supporters in hit-and-run attacks. …said [they were] all antisemitic.’ The complaint was that RNZ ‘severely distorted’ the context of the events to the point of inaccuracy; discriminated against and denigrated ‘the Amsterdam people who responded to Maccabi’s racist provocations’ and immigrants, by ‘choosing to represent this as antisemitism’; and lacked balance and fairness by excluding Amsterdam locals’ perspective. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the brief summary of the Amsterdam mayor’s response was not materially misleading in the context of Sports Chat, and the remaining standards did not apply.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  Radio New Zealand’s (RNZ) Morning Report programme on 11 November 2024 included Sports Chat with Nathan Rarere (presenter of First Up which precedes Morning Report each day), as follows:

Presenter:   It's time now for some Sports Chat with Nathan Rarere. Now, Nathan, violence is rocking the football world yet again.

Rarere:        Yes, it's a bit horrible this, it's a bit of a return to a long time ago. But it happened in Amsterdam last week. So, Ajax is the big club, obviously in Amsterdam, and Israel's Maccabi Tel Aviv were playing in the Champions League tournament. But what happened was, afterwards, the Amsterdam Mayor has come out and said, look, criminals on scooters searched the city for Maccabi supporters in hit-and-run attacks. [The mayor] said [they were] all antisemitic. They were all chasing them down. So, five of these supporters actually ended up in hospital. So, Amsterdam, then went out and went alright, we are banning demonstrations of any sort for three days. They're also banning face coverings etc to try and deal with that.

Now, what's happened is next door to them, of course, in France, they've gone well, hang on, we've got a Nations League this week and it's against Israel. So, what they have done is they have released a statement, it's just come out here from France in the last hour. Paris police say that on Sunday 4,000 officers and 1,600 stadium staff will be deployed, and they are basically going to patrol the stadium, around the stadium, and also public transportation as well. And I got to experience those police and military when I was up at the [Paris] Olympics. They do not muck around - like, the amount of machine guns that you will see out there as well. So, it's a shame that this has to happen. So hopefully it just goes without incident.

Presenter:   Yeah, I mean, luckily, you do have some happier news also out of Europe, though, this morning.

[2]  Rarere then moved onto a recent National Football League (NFL) game between two American teams played in Munich, Germany.

The complaint

[3]  Andrew Tait complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis that:

• Describing the violent events as ‘antisemitic, citing the mayor of Amsterdam …unfortunately follows the general tenor of RNZ’s coverage of the incidents’.
• ‘Careful reading of multiple reports, including eyewitness reports from the Netherlands, suggests Maccabi fans [mostly off-duty Israeli soldiers] deliberately provoked Amsterdam locals by tearing down and burning Palestinian flags and celebrating the war in Gaza, including the murder of children. Maccabi fans are notorious for anti-Arab racism…’
• ‘In response to Maccabi fans' provocations… Amsterdam locals, including fans of Ajax – historically a Jewish club that cannot credibly be accused of antisemitism, responded by beating up the Maccabi fans’.
• 'While violence in sport is to be deplored, this incident has a context that RNZ has severely distorted to the point of complete inaccuracy’.
• ‘By choosing to represent this as antisemitism, RNZ has discriminated against and denigrated the Amsterdam people who responded to Maccabi’s racist provocations.’
• ‘Antisemitism is being weaponised by the far right to discriminate against and denigrate immigrants. RNZ has facilitated that.’
• ‘The report lacked all balance and fairness by excluding the perspective of Amsterdam locals whose city was invaded by off-duty Israeli soldiers on furlough from a genocidal war.’
• ‘The lack of seriousness of Nathan Rarere and the Morning Report hosts amounts to a serious breach of Broadcasting Standards.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

• The overall topic of the violence before and after the Ajax-Maccabi Tel Aviv football match was first covered in RNZ’s 8pm bulletin on Friday 8 November and then featured in several bulletins on Saturday 9 November; ‘Different aspects of the violence were covered in those bulletins with particular focus on the plight of Israeli Maccabi supporters who appear to have been targeted after the completion of the game.’
• The item complained about ‘primarily focused on the security measures that were going to put in place for the next Nations League match to be held in Paris involving the Israel national team in the following days given the events which had occurred in Amsterdam. The item also included reference to and a quote from the mayor of Amsterdam with respect to the violence that followed the Maccabi game in that city’.
• While the complainant may have preferred all aspects of the story, and ‘an Arab or Muslim perspective on the violent events reported’ to be included, in the brief amount of time available in any one news item, it is not possible nor required by the standards to cover every aspect of a story in every item. RNZ carefully reviewed the item and did not find any material inaccuracy or misleading content.
• RNZ considered balance was achieved by its other coverage across the period of current interest in the ongoing topic, citing an 8 November article¹, as well as a follow-up article on 9 November² which included the following further information:

‘Videos on social media showed riot police in action, with some attackers shouting anti-Israeli slurs. Footage also showed Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters chanting anti-Arab slogans before Thursday evening's match.’

‘One video verified by Reuters showed a group of men running near Amsterdam central station, chasing and assaulting other men as police sirens sounded.’

‘Another verified video showed Maccabi fans setting off flares and chanting ‘Ole, ole, let the IDF win, we will f*** the Arabs’, referring to the Israel Defence Forces.’

The standards

[5]  The purpose of the accuracy standard³ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁴ 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.

[6]  The balance standard⁵ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁶ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.⁷

[7]  The discrimination and denigration standard⁸ 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 because of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

[8]  The fairness standard⁹ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁰ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

[9]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. For context, we also requested and listened to RNZ’s news bulletins from 8 and 9 November 2024 reporting on the events in Amsterdam (cited in RNZ’s decision on the complaint).

[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 and uphold a complaint where the level of harm justifies placing a reasonable and justified limitation on the right to freedom of expression.¹¹

[11]  We consider accuracy to be the most applicable to the complainant’s concerns and have focused our decision accordingly. The remaining standards are addressed briefly at paragraph [18].

Accuracy

[12]  The harm alleged under this standard is that listeners may have been misled by not receiving context about the violent events which, in turn, ‘severely distorted’ the news item and may contribute to anti-immigrant politics as well as promoting the view that attacks on Maccabi fans were driven by antisemitism (while ignoring Maccabi fans’ provocations prior to the match). Apart from use of the word ‘antisemitism’, the complainant did not identify any specific statements they considered inaccurate.

[13]  It is not our role to determine whether the violence was driven by antisemitism. Our role is to determine whether the accuracy standard has been breached by assessing first whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading, and second, whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[14]  To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’ (which may be by omission).¹² The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies or materially misleading content. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.¹³

[15]  In the context of Sports Chat and audience expectations of that segment, as well as RNZ’s other coverage of the events, we concluded the Sports Chat segment was not materially inaccurate or misleading in breach of the standard. The factors supporting this view are:

• While it may be captured under the accuracy standard on the basis it discusses sports news and is part of Morning Report, Sports Chat is more in the nature of sporting commentary.¹⁴ We do not consider regular listeners would expect it to present hard news or in-depth analysis of current events.
• The segment is described on RNZ’s website as ‘an update on what’s happening in the sports world’ and offers a short (less than five minutes), often lively and sometimes humorous exchange offering presenters’ personal perspectives on current sports stories.
• This edition of Sports Chat was framed by the Morning Report presenter as focusing on ‘violence… rocking the football world yet again’. It did not purport to be an in-depth news report on the events in Amsterdam or the precursors to the violence.
• Rarere briefly mentioned the events in Amsterdam as they had been reported over the previous days, including that the mayor had banned all demonstrations in the city for three days to calm the situation, before focusing on the security measures that were going to be put in place for the next Nations League match, scheduled to be in Paris between France and Israel.
• Rarere quoted the Amsterdam mayor ‘who has come out and said, “look, criminals on scooters searched the city for Maccabi supporters in hit-and-run attacks”. [The mayor] said [they were] all antisemitic.’
• Neither RNZ nor Rarere expressed an opinion on whether the attacks were antisemitic. That view was clearly attributed to the Amsterdam mayor responding to the violence – consistent with other reporting (including internationally) describing the mayor’s and the Dutch Prime Minister’s reactions to the attacks.¹⁵
• The nature of the item did not allow for a detailed discussion on all aspects of the story and the audience would not have expected that in the context of a short ‘sports chat’ update covering several topics.
• RNZ had, however, reported further details the complainant wished to be included in this broadcast, in its earlier news coverage of the events (provocations by Maccabi fans prior to the match; that Ajax is historically a Jewish club, etc).¹⁶ For example, bulletins we listened to from 8-9 November 2024 included the following:
  
  • ‘…But there are also multiple videos showing a crowd tearing down a Palestinian flag from a street in central Amsterdam with anti-Palestinian chants audible in the background.’ (9pm, 8 November)
  • ‘There are also multiple videos showing a crowd tearing down a Palestinian flag from a street in central Amsterdam with anti-Palestinian chants audible in the background. The sequence of events is not yet certain…’ (11pm, 8 November; 1am, 9 November)
  • ‘Amsterdam's chief of police says the Israeli team’s supporters had earlier attacked a taxi and set fire to a Palestinian flag. Unverified videos on social media also show Israelis chanting against Arabs and Palestinians.’ (6am, 9 November)

[16]  Having found the programme was not misleading, it is not necessary to determine whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme.¹⁷

[17]  We therefore found no harm under the accuracy standard that outweighed the right to freedom of expression or justifies regulatory intervention. We do not uphold this part of the complaint.

Remaining standards

[18]  We found the remaining standards nominated in the complaint either did not apply or were not breached, for the following reasons:

• Balance: The balance standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.¹⁸ While it appears the Amsterdam events and resulting violence were controversial, given the nature and audience expectations of Sports Chat (as a short sporting commentary or ‘update on the sporting world’ by a chosen commentator each day, covering an array of topics), we do not consider Rarere’s brief mention of those events amounted to a ‘discussion’ in the context. Therefore, the standard did not apply to this segment. In any event, RNZ has pointed to earlier coverage that reported the further context the complainant wished to be included. Further, given the substantial coverage of the Amsterdam events by RNZ and other media, listeners would have appreciated there was more information available than could be conveyed in a brief and informal update of the sports stories that featured on Sports Chat.
• Discrimination and denigration: Complaints under this standard must relate to a recognised section of the community defined by reference to the group’s shared sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.¹⁹ 
  • The complainant argued that by representing the violence as antisemitism’, RNZ denigrated and discriminated against ‘the Amsterdam people who responded to Maccabi’s racist provocations’ and facilitated the ‘weaponisation’ of antisemitism to discriminate against and denigrate ‘immigrants’. 
  • These are both broad (non-homogenous) groups which do not share a characteristic protected under the standard, so the standard does not apply.²⁰ 
  • In any event, the standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of factual material or the genuine expression of serious comment or analysis.²¹ 
  • Rarere simply reported the Amsterdam mayor’s view that the attacks were carried out by ‘criminals on scooters’ and were ‘antisemitic’ (a view which was widely reported), and the actions Amsterdam was taking in response. We also do not agree that the tone of the segment demonstrated a ‘lack of seriousness’ as alleged in the complaint. Nor was it dismissive of the violence, with Rarere acknowledging at the outset the violent events were ‘horrible’.
• Fairness: The purpose of this standard is to ensure fair treatment of individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast. The standard does not apply to the complainant’s concerns that ‘the report lacked all balance and fairness by excluding the perspective of Amsterdam locals’ – who do not constitute a particular ‘individual’ or ‘organisation’ ‘taking part or referred to’, for the purposes of the standard. We have also previously held the standard does not address concerns about whether facts have been ‘fairly’ presented.²²

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
26 February 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Andrew Tait’s formal complaint – 11 November 2024

2  RNZ’s decision on the complaint – 21 November 2024

3  Tait’s referral to the Authority – 10 December 2024

4  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 18 December 2024

¹ Enas Alashray and Bart H Meijer “Israel to collect soccer fans from Amsterdam after apparent antisemitic attacks” RNZ (online ed, 8 November 2024) <rnz.co.nz> 
² Anthony Deutsch and Bart H Meijer “Amsterdam bans demos after ‘antisemitic squads’ attack Israeli soccer fans” RNZ (online ed, 9 November 2024) <rnz.co.nz>
³ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁴ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁵ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁷ Guideline 5.1
⁸ Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹¹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹² Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
¹³ Guideline 6.2
¹⁴ See, for example, Knight and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2020-020; Frame and Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2021-098; Buchanan and Sky Network Television Ltd, Decision No. 2021-106
¹⁵ For example, “Amsterdam violence: Mayor condemns attacks on Israeli fans” ESPN (online ed, 8 November 2024); Barbara Tasch and Anna Holligan “Amsterdam mayor condemns 'hit and run' attacks on Israeli football supporters” BBC (online ed, 8 November 2024); Paul Kirby “We must not turn blind eye to antisemitism, says Dutch king after attacks on Israeli football fans” BBC (online ed, 9 November 2024).
¹⁶ Anthony Deutsch and Bart H Meijer “Amsterdam bans demos after 'antisemitic squads' attack Israeli soccer fans” RNZ (online ed, 9 November 2024)
¹⁷ Van der Merwe and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-015 at [21]
¹⁸ Guideline 5.1
¹⁹ See Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho "Complaints that are unlikely to succeed" <bsa.govt.nz> 
²⁰ For examples of similar findings, see Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho "Complaints that are unlikely to succeed" <www.bsa.govt.nz> 
²¹ Guideline 4.2
²² For example, OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [17]; Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057 at [16]