BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]
An item on 1 News reported on clashes between mourners and Israeli police at the funeral of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was misleading by implying the locations of Abu Akleh’s death and her funeral were in Israel and by impliedly ‘exonerating’ Israel for its police force’s actions at the funeral and for Abu Akleh’s death. While the item did not specify the city or country where the events took place, the Authority found the generic place descriptors used combined with references to ‘Israeli police’ and ‘Israeli forces’ being present would not have misled the audience to believe the events occurred in Israel. It further found the broadcast did not impliedly ‘exonerate’ Israel.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1 News on 14 May 2022 reported on unrest at the funeral of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The host stated:

There have been chaotic scenes at the funeral for a Palestinian journalist who was shot and killed in the West Bank this week. Israeli police entered a hospital compound where pallbearers were trying to carry Shireen Abu Akleh's coffin to a church for her funeral. Stun grenades were detonated, forcing people to flee inside hospital buildings. Some marchers were beaten with batons. Israeli forces say rocks had been thrown. Tens of thousands of Palestinians eventually joined the procession, carrying her coffin to the cemetery.

[2]  The story showed footage of the clash, including mourners waving Palestinian flags facing a group of police, fleeing from stun grenades and being beaten with batons by police.

The complaint

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

• The item ‘misrepresented geography in favour of the State of Israel.  The Israeli attack on the funeral was in occupied East Jerusalem.  TVNZ offered no identification at all for where this was, other than to refer to “the cemetery”, “the church” and “the hospital compound”. The location of the killing was given as “the West Bank”.’
• ‘It was to be inferred, by references to “Israeli police” and “Israeli forces”, that both locations were somewhere in Israel, and could even be the same place in Israel.’ This created the impression that Israeli forces were acting ‘within a sovereign territory of the State of Israel.’
• The item should have used the terms ‘occupied West Bank,’ ‘occupied East Jerusalem’ and ‘Israeli occupation forces’ to make it clear that the West Bank and East Jerusalem are not part of Israel.
• Further, the item was ‘at pains to exonerate Israel and express events in the passive sense, such as that Abu Akleh was “shot and killed”, “stun grenades were used” and “some marchers were beaten.” None of these actions were attributed to the Israeli occupation forces who carried them out.’
• The item implied rocks had been thrown by Palestinians and ‘offered no evidence or verification for this claim made by the Israeli police.’
• There was also no mention that the Israeli government had withdrawn its recent claim that Palestinians might have been responsible for Abu Akleh’s death.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Television New Zealand Ltd did not uphold WPG’s complaint, stating:

• ‘1 News’ best practice guidelines recommend the ascription of specific and neutral place names in reporting of issues relating to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict.’
• ‘”A church”, “a cemetery” and “the hospital compound” were generic descriptions of relevant locations in the context of the story. There was no suggestion that these locations were within Israel, despite the presence and actions of Israeli police (who viewers would likely be aware, regularly operate within Occupied Palestinian Territories such as the West Bank).’
• It was accurate to state that Abu Akleh was killed in the West Bank.
• ‘The story in question was brief and clearly focussed on a specific incident. The broader matter of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land was outside its scope. The absence of material specifically referencing Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land did not make the story inaccurate or misleading.’
• It disagreed that the story sought to exonerate Israel, noting ‘The report was … brief, and it was concerned with the events that transpired at Ms Abu Akleh’s funeral – not the events of her death. In any case, 1 News had already reported in detail about Ms Abu Akleh’s death on May 12. In that report, 1 News covered the circumstances around Ms Abu Akleh’s death and included claims that [Israeli] forces were responsible.’
• It was apparent that ‘the use of stun grenades and beating of marchers were the actions of Israeli forces. Similarly, it was obvious from the context that it was Palestinian marchers that were alleged to have been throwing rocks. It was expressly stated that this was an allegation made by the Israeli forces.’

The relevant standard

[5]  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

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

[7]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the resulting limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.³

[8]  Audiences may be misinformed in two ways: by incorrect statements of fact within the programme; and/or by being misled by the programme as a whole.⁴ Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts.’⁵ Programmes may be misleading by omission, or as a result of the way dialogue and images have been edited together.⁶

[9]  The complainant considers the item was misleading for two broad reasons:

• It implied the location of the funeral and the location of Abu Akleh’s death were in Israel when both events took place in occupied Palestinian territory (East Jerusalem and the West Bank respectively); and
• It attempted to ‘exonerate’ Israel for its police force’s actions at the funeral and for Abu Akleh’s death.

[10]  Firstly, as we have recognised in several previous decisions,⁷ issues of geography in Israel and Palestine are particularly fraught. We have previously warned broadcasters to take special care with the geographic labels used for such areas when reporting on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

[11]  In relation to the complainant’s concerns that the item misled viewers to believe the relevant events took place in Israel, we do not consider the broadcast had this effect. While the broadcast did not specifically mention which city or country the events took place in, TVNZ’s use of generic place descriptors such as ‘a church,’ and ‘a cemetery’ to describe where the funeral took place, and reference to ‘the West Bank’ to describe where Abu Akleh was killed, were not inaccurate. These were editorial choices open to the broadcaster.

[12]  Further, in our view, these descriptors combined with references to ‘Israeli police’ and ‘Israeli forces’ being present did not give the impression the events occurred in Israel. These references were factual statements and did not insinuate any sovereign or legitimate presence by Israeli forces. We consider most viewers who follow events in the Israel-Palestine region would be at least broadly aware of the conflict surrounding occupied territories and understand that Israeli forces have a presence in such areas.

[13]  Nor did the absence of any explicit reference to ‘occupied West Bank,’ ‘occupied East Jerusalem’ or ‘Israeli occupation forces’ result in the item as a whole being inaccurate or misleading. This was also an editorial decision open to the broadcaster to make.

[14]  In relation to the complainant’s concerns the broadcast was misleading by attempting to ‘exonerate Israel,’ we also do not consider the broadcast had this effect. In our view, it was clear from the dialogue and footage shown that the Israeli police had detonated stun grenades and beaten people heading to a funeral with batons. While brief, the footage even showed Israeli police beating pallbearers attempting to hold the coffin. Further, we do not consider the statement that Abu Akleh was ‘shot and killed’ was in any way inaccurate, or that it impliedly ‘exonerated’ any party for her death.

[15]  The complainant is also concerned the item did not include evidence regarding the reported claims by Israeli police that rocks were thrown, and did not mention the Israeli government had withdrawn a claim that Palestinians may have been responsible for Abu Akleh’s death. These concerns border on matters of personal preference as to what should have been included in the broadcast, which are not capable of being addressed by the complaints process. The item was very brief (approximately 30 seconds in length) and focussed on the unrest at Abu Akleh’s funeral. It was not able to traverse every detail concerning the incident, and did not purport to be a broader examination of the circumstances around Abu Akleh’s death. We do not consider the omission of the points the complainant has identified misled viewers in any way.

[16]  For the reasons set out above, in our view the item was not misleading and did not breach the accuracy standard.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
26 October 2022   

Appendix

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

1.  Wellington Palestine Group’s original complaint to TVNZ – 23 May 2022

2.  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 20 June 2022

3.  WPG’s referral to the Authority – 17 July 2022

4.  TVNZ’s further comments – 1 August 2022

5.  WPG’s further comments – 23 August 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 As above
⁵ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, CIV-2011-485-1110
⁶ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁷ For example: Wellington Palestine Group and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2016-048 at [12]; Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2015-101 at [10]; Wellington Palestine Group and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2018-053 at [10]