BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on clashes between mourners and Israeli police at the funeral of a Palestinian-American journalist in East Jerusalem. Footage of the events was accompanied by a caption onscreen stating ‘Jerusalem, Israel,’ which the complainant considered was inaccurate. The Authority found the brief caption would not have materially affected viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole and therefore the accuracy standard was not breached.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  An item on Newshub Live at 6pm on 14 May 2022 reported on unrest at the funeral of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh between Israeli forces and mourners in East Jerusalem:

Host 1:                      There have been shocking scenes at the funeral for Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. It's thought she was killed by Israeli soldiers while working in the occupied West Bank.

Host 2:                      As mourners tried to carry her body through East Jerusalem, Israeli forces began beating pallbearers with batons, at one point causing the coffin to drop.

[2]  A pre-recorded item sourced from ITV was then shown. The ITV reporter stated:

Reporter:                  They gathered in their hundreds in East Jerusalem, for Shireen Abu Akleh's final journey – the Al Jazeera correspondent shot dead earlier this week. Her funeral procession began outside St Joseph's Hospital. Israel forbids public displays of Palestinian flags. So Israeli forces moved in after they say they came under attack from stone throwers. They struck using their batons, as stun grenades were fired.

[3]  While the reporter was speaking, a caption stating ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ was shown onscreen for approximately four seconds.

The complaint

[4]  The Wellington Palestine Group (WPG) complained the broadcast was inaccurate:

• ‘The funeral depicted in the item was conducted in Occupied East Jerusalem. In the course of the broadcast however, a caption, presumably supplied by ITV, stated the location was “Jerusalem Israel.” This is not correct. This part of Jerusalem is not in Israel.’
• ‘The consequence of this error was that the Israeli forces would be seen by viewers to have had a legitimate presence at the funeral, albeit brutally so, rather than that their function was to enforce an occupation.’

[5]  The WPG noted the report had correctly described the location where Abu Akleh was killed as the ‘Occupied West Bank’.

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  Discovery NZ Ltd did not uphold the complaint, stating:

As you have pointed out in your complaint, the ITV report covering Shireen Abu Akleh’s funeral keyed ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ briefly onscreen. …the voiceover over the top of the onscreen key referred to East Jerusalem and there was no further reference to ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ in the remainder of the Broadcast. While we acknowledge the regrettable keying error, we are satisfied that the voiceover sufficiently corrected the error and the audience was not materially misled considering the verbal correction.

[7]  Discovery apologised to the complainant for any distress caused by the error.

[8]  Upon request for clarification, the broadcaster confirmed for the Authority that Newshub staff had applied the caption to the item, not ITV.

The standard

[9]  The accuracy standard states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead.¹ Its purpose is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.²

Our analysis

[10]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[11]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. Our task is to weigh the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold a complaint where limiting the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.³

[12]  The complainant considers the caption in the item indicating that Abu Akleh’s funeral took place in ‘Jerusalem, Israel,’ was inaccurate as it took place in Occupied East Jerusalem, and ‘This part of Jerusalem is not in Israel.’

[13]  The Authority has previously recognised the high level of sensitivity in relation to issues of geography in Israel and Palestine, and that care is needed in this respect when reporting on the conflict.⁴

[14]  However, the accuracy standard is concerned only with ‘material points of fact’. Technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁵ Context can aid the consideration of whether an aspect of a broadcast was materially accurate.⁶

[15]  In this instance, we do not consider the brief caption would have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole and on that basis we have not found any breach of the accuracy standard. In making this finding we took into account:

• The caption was very brief, shown onscreen for only approximately four seconds out of a two-and-a-half-minute item.
• The caption was not verbalised or otherwise referred to.
• In the accompanying voiceover the reporter subsequently referred to the location of the events as ‘East Jerusalem’.
• The item’s focus was on clashes between mourners and Israeli police at the funeral of Abu Akleh; it described these events and showed footage of what was occurring. It did not directly discuss the conflict regarding geographical areas.
• The complainant noted the introduction correctly stated Abu Akleh was killed in the ‘occupied West Bank’.
• The complainant did not identify any other aspect of the item (aside from the caption) as being inaccurate.

[16]   Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
8 November 2022   

Appendix

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

1  Wellington Palestine Group’s formal complaint to Discovery – 9 June 2022

2  WPG’s follow-up letter to Discovery – 23 June 2022

3  Discovery’s response to complaint – 7 July 2022

4  WPG’s referral to the Authority – 18 July 2022

5  Discovery’s confirmation of no further comments – 20 July 2022

6  Discovery’s response to enquiry regarding caption – 12 September 2022

¹ Standard 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
³ Freedom of Expression: Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁴ See, for example: Wellington Palestine Group and Mediaworks Ltd, Decision No. 2018-053 at [10] and Wakim on behalf of Palestine Human Rights Campaign and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2003-052 at [24]
⁵ Guideline 9b
⁶ See, for example: Cumin and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-068 at [17] and Collie and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-008 at [15]