BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

Events in the Middle East were dealt with in items on One Network News broadcast

between 6.00–7.00pm on 15 and 26 April 1996. The item on 15 April showed a map

which referred to the Security Zone in Southern Lebanon. The item on 26 April

covered the peace deal between Israel and the Hizbullah but did not mention the

arrangements for the Security Zone.

The Wellington Palestine Group complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the

broadcaster, that both items were inaccurate and unbalanced. While the former item

did not state clearly that the Security Zone was in fact part of Lebanon, the latter did

not mention that the deal allowed Israeli troops to remain in the zone in contravention

of the United Nations resolution on the matter.

Maintaining that the 15 April item highlighted the points in issue and did not suggest

that the zone was not part of Lebanon, TVNZ declined to uphold that complaint. On

the basis that the 26 April item covered the relevant points, TVNZ also declined to

uphold that matter.

Dissatisfied with the broadcaster's decision, the Wellington Palestine Group referred

the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the

Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaints.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the items complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendices). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaints without a formal hearing.

The conflict in Lebanon was described, in a news item on One Network News on 15

April 1996 as being between Israel and Hizbullah extremists. A map used to illustrate

the situation identified Lebanon, Israel and the Israeli Security Zone. A second item

on One Network News on 26 April referred to the peace deal between Israel and the

Hizbullah.

15 April item

Ms Nadia el Maaroufi, on behalf of the Wellington Palestine Group, complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd that it was not objective to characterise the Lebanese

resistance to the illegal Israeli occupation of South Lebanon as "extremist". The

Group noted that while Hizbullah had some members who were prepared to die for

their cause, it was unnecessary and inaccurate to describe the whole organisation as

extremist. It added that Hizbullah was no more extremist in the Middle East context

than was Israel in the world context, yet Israel was not described as extremist, despite

the fact that it occupied territories in clear violation of international law.

In addition, the Group complained that the map used was inaccurate because it

showed Lebanon, Israel and the Israeli Security Zone and did not indicate that the

Security Zone was part of Lebanon. The Group argued that the biased coverage

would lead viewers mistakenly to believe that the violence in Israel was a resistance

against an alien occupier.

As requested by the Group, TVNZ examined the complaint in the context of

standards G1 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those

standards require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

First, TVNZ examined the description of Hizbullah as extremists. According to the

dictionary definition, TVNZ argued, an extremist is a person holding extreme or

fanatical political or religious views and who resorts to or advocates extreme action.

Because the pictures showed Hizbullah supporters preparing themselves to be suicide

bombers, TVNZ argued that the use of the description "extremist" was not inaccurate

or unfair.

Referring to the map, TVNZ noted that Israel and Lebanon were shown in different

shades, while the Israeli Security Zone in southern Lebanon was highlighted as a white

strip. It did not agree that the map suggested that the Security Zone was not part of

Lebanon, arguing that the purpose of the map was solely to provide information about

the location of the zone, and carried no other political or geographical details.

TVNZ concluded there was no inaccuracy in its description of Hizbullah, or in the use

of and detail in the map. Further, it found no lack of balance in the item and did not

agree that the descriptions were unfair or partial.

When it referred the complaint to the Authority, the Group withdrew its complaint

about the description of Hizbullah as extremists. It persisted with its view that the

map failed to convey that Israel was occupying a substantial part of southern

Lebanon, pointing out that it was important to viewers to realise that the zone was in

Lebanon to enable them to assess for themselves the rights and wrongs of the conflict.

26 April item

During One Network News on 26 April 1996, reference was made to the peace deal

between Israel and Hizbullah. The Group complained that the item failed to mention

that under the agreement reached Israel was able to continue to occupy part of

southern Lebanon, and that such occupation was contrary to United Nations Security

Council resolutions. The Group contended that this item compounded the error in the

map broadcast on 15 April.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under the standards cited above. It asserted that the

news item had to be considered in the context of on-going coverage of activities in the

Middle East and that its focus was on reporting the cease-fire arrangement and

highlighting what new rules had been laid down. TVNZ suggested that Israel's

continued occupation of the Security Zone and the Security Council's disapproval of

this were on-going matters and there was therefore no reason to mention them

specifically in a report about the cease-fire plan.

Referring to the alleged breach of standard G1, TVNZ responded that it did not believe

it was necessary every time the region was discussed, to report on the status of

Israel's occupation and the Security Council's attitude to it. Stressing that the report

was balanced and fair, it also rejected the complaint that standard G6 was breached.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority acknowledges the role the Wellington Palestine Group has played in

ensuring that broadcasters accurately and objectively report events in the Middle East.

It refers to recent correspondence, provided by the Group, in which TVNZ conceded

that a map used to illustrate another news item was inaccurate and inappropriate, and

advised that it had prepared a new map for its files which accurately conveyed the

political dynamics of the region.

In the two complaints which are currently under consideration, the Authority notes

that the Group itself conceded that the error in the 15 April map was not significant in

isolation, but had to be considered in the wider context of news reports about the

region. Further, with respect to the 26 April item, the Authority observes that the

Group acknowledged, in principle, TVNZ's argument that its on-going coverage of

events in the region provided balance.

The Authority understands the Group's insistence that objectivity, precision and

attention to detail are desirable goals, especially as the politics of the Middle East

involves complex relationships and difficult concepts of international law. It regards

TVNZ's attitude, as evidenced in its decision to revise its file maps of the region, as

commendable and considers it is making an earnest attempt to eliminate factual errors

and misleading implications in its coverage of Middle East issues.

On this occasion, the Authority concludes that the items did not breach broadcasting

standards. When it considers the map in the first item, it decides that it was but a

minor aspect of the item and was unlikely to have misled viewers. With respect to the

second item, it does not believe there was a nexus between the map shown in the 15

April item and the later item on 26 April which would have led viewers to

misinterpret the nature of Israel's occupation. Accordingly, it declines to uphold the

complaints.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the

complaints.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
29 August 1996

Appendix I

Wellington Palestine Group's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd -

22 April 1996

Nadia el Maaroufi on behalf of Wellington Palestine Group complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd about a news item dealing with the conflict in Lebanon and northern

Israel which was broadcast on One Network News between 6.00 - 7.00pm on 15 April

1996. She alleged that the broadcast breached standards G1 and G6 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice.

She contended that it was grossly subjective to describe the conflict dealt with in the

item as between "Israel and Hizbullah extremists" Conceding that some Hizbullah

would be prepared to die for their cause, she stressed that to call the whole

organisation "extremist" was unnecessary and inaccurate.

Ms el Maaroufi also pointed out that the Group considered that the map used to

describe the situation was inaccurate. In particular, it did not indicate that the Israeli

Security Zone was part of Lebanon. Emphasising that the occupation by Israel of

Southern Lebanon was in breach of a UN Security Council resolution, she argued that

these mistakes denied viewers:

... the opportunity to realise that the violence against Israel is a resistance

against an alien occupier.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 20 May 1996

Assessing the complaint under the standards nominated by the Wellington Palestine

Group, TVNZ first considered the aspect about the use of the term "extremists".

It noted that the Concise Oxford Dictionary defined "extremist" as:

A person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views and esp.

resorts to or advocates extreme action.

Pointing out that the item's comment was made in relation to footage showing

members of Hizbullah preparing for suicide bomb attacks, TVNZ stated that as they

were resorting to extreme action, it did not consider it unfair or inaccurate to describe

them as "extremists".

Acknowledging that it was unlikely to use the term "extremist" to describe a sovereign

state, TVNZ suggested it might be appropriate to use the term to describe the action

of forces employed by a sovereign state in specific circumstances. Moreover, it noted,

shelling attacks, unlike suicide bombings, were not extreme actions and, it maintained,

the Israeli bombardment did not spring from "fanatical" views. Thus the term

"extremist" could not be appropriately used to describe the Israeli troops.

In regard to the second point, TVNZ commented:

... Israel and Lebanon are shown in different shades of a neutral colour and the

Israeli Security Zone in Southern Lebanon is highlighted as a white strip. The

Security Zone and the Litani River were important reference points in the story on

"One Network News" that evening and it was important to show the viewer

exactly where they are.

TVNZ maintained that the map was did not suggest the Security Zone was not part of

Lebanon, and considered that the white strip simply informed the viewer of the

location of the zone without carrying any other political or geographical implication.

It pointed out that news stories frequently mentioned the Lebanese fleeing their homes

in that area.

Concluding that both the description of the Hizbullah and the detail of the map were

neither inaccurate nor unbalanced, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint.

Wellington Palestine Group's Referral to the Authority - 17 June 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Ms el Maaroufi of the Wellington Palestine

Group referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a)

of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Noting that TVNZ chose to apply different standards to states than to organisations,

the Wellington Palestine Group nevertheless withdrew the complaint about the use of

the term "extremists".

Agreeing that it was important to show where the Security Zone was, the Group

stated that it was equally important to show within whose boundaries it was. The

map failed to do this and, consequently, could be quite misleading. In the Group's

view:

The fact that it is in Lebanon is very important for the way viewers will judge

the rights and wrongs of the conflict. To geographically show the true

situation would be easy and in no way confuse the viewer as to the zone's

location in the region.

In regard to TVNZ's comment that it had shown "Lebanese fleeing their homes in this

area", the Group pointed out that they had shown people fleeing from an area north of

the zone, and that they were fleeing an Israeli attack launched from the Security Zone.

This, it alleged, implied that the zone was in fact part of Israel.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 9 July 1996

Explaining that the purpose of the map was to help viewers understand the story,

TVNZ said it would be misleading for the zone to be in the shading as Lebanon or

Israel. It was under Israeli military control but was not part of Israel.

The decision, it continued, was made to show the zone in white to ensure that it was

quite clear where the Security Zone was.

The Wellington Palestine Group's Final Comment - 22 July 1996

When asked to make a brief final comment, the Group repeated that its complaint with

the first item was that TVNZ should have drawn Lebanon's boundary around the

security zone and captioned it as part of Lebanon. This, it argued, would have

satisfied both the requirements of identifying the location of the zone, and the country

to which it belonged.

It added that in isolation, the error was not significant. However, it was made in the

context of TVNZ so frequently getting the status of Israeli occupied territory wrong.

To illustrate that point, it appended a response from TVNZ regarding yet another

incident in which a map wrongly identified Israeli occupied zones. On that occasion,

TVNZ upheld the complaint.

Appendix II

Wellington Palestine Group's Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd - 1

May 1996

Nadia el Maaroufi on behalf of Wellington Palestine Group complained to Television

New Zealand Ltd about a news item describing the terms of the peace deal between

Israel and the Hizbullah shown on One Network News between 6.00 - 7.00pm on 26

April 1996. She alleged that the broadcast was in breach of standards G1 and G6 of

the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

The complaint, she wrote, was based on the item's failure to mention that, under the

agreement, Israel could continue to occupy part of southern Lebanon and that this

occupation was contrary to United Nations Security Council instructions. She

considered that the omission compounded the breach in the item on the news on 15

April (see Appendix I). The Group suggested that TVNZ ought to have mentioned

that the General Assembly was still debating the Israeli occupation.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 21 May 1996

In its response, TVNZ said that it was important to identify significant new rules laid

down in the cease-fire, and listed the four main points it believed were most important

for viewers. It acknowledged that in a short news item it would not be possible to

cover all points of the agreement, but it considered that it had mentioned the salient

ones. It pointed out:

In a very real sense the ability of Israel to continue to use southern Lebanon as

a security zone and the Security Council's disapproval of this were on going

matters. They reflected the status quo before the latest outbreak of fighting,

and they reflect the status quo now. There was no particular reason to

mention them specifically in a report which examined the newly promulgated

cease-fire plan.

However, TVNZ stated that the item had made it clear that Israel was operating from

a foreign country, and that the reporter had observed that the cease-fire would not

prevent further fighting in southern Lebanon. TVNZ continued:

We do not accept the inference in your letter that the status of Israel's security

zone and the United Nation's position regarding it needs to be reported

every time the area is discussed.

The complaint was not upheld.

Wellington Palestine Group's Referral to the Authority - 17 June 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response, Ms el Maaroufi of the Wellington Palestine

Group referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a)

of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

The Group, she wrote, made two main points in respect of the complaint. First,

acknowledging that an issue could not be covered in detail in one item, it asked that

balancing points at least be referred to on some occasion and suggested:

We would ask of TVNZ in its spirit of "ongoing coverage", when did it ever

mention UNSC Resolution 425 in its coverage of the fighting this year?

Secondly, it pointed out that TVNZ was incorrect in referring to the terms of the

cease-fire as new as they were a repeat of the 1993 terms.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 10 July 1996

Dealing with the Group's challenge to the description of the terms of the cease-fire as

"new", TVNZ said that although similar sentiments were expressed in the 1993

accord, the four points listed were the salient features of the new cease-fire agreement

in April 1996.

The Group's Final Comment - 22 July 1996

When asked to make a brief final comment to the Authority, the Group summarised

the complaint as being about the lack of appropriate narration in TVNZ's news stories

dealing with Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. It conceded, to some extent, the

principle that balance had been achieved by the on-going coverage of the matter.

Nevertheless it argued, TVNZ had responded that the four points of the agreement

was the news story of the day, and not the occupation. Further, TVNZ had not

responded to its point that it had not covered the UN Security Council resolution 425.