BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

A studio interview with RNZ's correspondent Asher Wallfish was broadcast on

Morning Report on 7 October 1994.

The Wellington Palestine Group, through its Chair, complained to Radio New Zealand

that the report, which described Asher Wallfish as the correspondent from Jerusalem

who reported on matters in Israel, implied that Jerusalem was part of Israel and

accused RNZ of broadcasting a deliberate error.

RNZ responded by clarifying some matters, including explaining that Asher Wallfish

did not file his reports from Jerusalem, but from his home, which was outside of that

city. It noted that the interview on that occasion took place in its Wellington studio

and that the conversation ranged over a number of matters, including personal

recollections of events. It declined to uphold the complaint that any aspect of the

report breached the requirement for accuracy. Dissatisfied with that response, the

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

of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declined to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have listened to a tape of the item complained about

and have read the correspondence which is summarised in the Appendix. As is its

practice, the Authority has determined the complaint without a formal hearing.

During his visit to New Zealand, RNZ's Israeli correspondent Asher Wallfish was

interviewed on Morning Report. The interview, broadcast on 7 October 1994, covered

general questions about Mr Wallfish's work and sought his views on Israel's future.

The Wellington Palestine Group accused RNZ of broadcasting a deliberate error

because, it claimed, comments made during the report implied that Jerusalem was part

of Israel. It gave a brief synopsis of the recent history of Israel, noting that Israel's

occupation of West Jerusalem in 1948 was contrary to the UN recommendations on

the partition of Palestine and that its annexation of East Jerusalem after the 1967 war

was not sanctioned by the UN. In addition, the UN has determined that Israel's

decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration on East Jerusalem was

illegal. The Group, when it referred its complaint to the Authority, sought the

broadcast of a programme of clarification about the situation in the region.

In the view that the complaint was received outside of the statutory time limit, RNZ

initially responded informally to the complaint. It noted that in the introduction its

correspondent was described as "...normally Jerusalem-based correspondent Asher

Wallfish, who reports on affairs in Israel...". It did not believe that was a statement

that any part of Jerusalem, or all or none, was or was not a part of Israel. Referring to

the Group's description of its correspondent as an avowed Zionist, RNZ strenuously

objected to such a term, pointing out his long association with several global news

organisations and that his accreditation by the Palestine National Authority confirmed

his independence. RNZ also took issue with the tone of the letter of complaint.

Upon establishing that the complaint was received at RNZ on the 20th working day

(ie within the time limit), RNZ then made a formal response in the middle of February,

some four months after the broadcast. It assessed the complaint under standard R1 of

the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters:

R1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact in news and current affairs

programmes.

It denied that its description of Asher Wallfish as "normally Jerusalem-based" implied

that the whole of Jerusalem was part of Israel and, further, it argued that remarks made

by a visitor concerning recollections and personal memories were not germane to a

complaint of inaccuracy. In its report to the Authority RNZ repeated that its

correspondent normally filed reports from his own home, located on the western side

of Jerusalem, and that many of his information contacts were in Israeli Jerusalem. It

declined to uphold the complaint that the item contained any inaccuracies.

The Authority has dealt at length with the question of the location of reporter Asher

Wallfish in previous decisions (Nos: 8/95 and 9/95). There it wrote, with respect to

the question of whether it was inaccurate to describe the reporter as reporting from

both Israel and Jerusalem:

It accepted that if the report was being broadcast from East Jerusalem (that

part of the city occupied by Israel after the 1967 war), it would be inaccurate

to state that it was a report from Israel since the New Zealand government (in

line with the UN and other western countries) does not recognise Israel's

occupation of East Jerusalem as lawful. If, however, the report came from

West Jerusalem, which has been occupied by Israel for nearly 50 years, it

would have been consistent with international opinion to imply that the report

was from Israel.

In those decisions, the Authority decided that in the absence of specific information

about the location of the reporter, it was inaccurate to state that he was reporting from

both Israel and Jerusalem. On this occasion, it has been advised by RNZ that its

reporter files his reports from his own home telephone and that he lives on the

western outskirts of Jerusalem. Accordingly, the Authority decided that it was not

inaccurate to state that the reporter was Jerusalem-based and reported on matters

occurring in Israel. It also noted that the interview took place in the Wellington studio

and did not, in the context of an informal conversation, believe that listeners would

have been misled about the political status of Jerusalem. It declined to uphold the

complaint.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Iain Gallaway
22 June 1995

Appendix

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

November 1994

The Wellington Palestine Group, through its Chair, Ms Nadia el Maaroufi, complained

to Radio New Zealand Ltd about its broadcast of an interview with Asher Wallfish on

Morning Report on 7 October 1994.

According to the Group, the interviewer stated that the correspondent reported from

Jerusalem on events in Israel. He then asked Asher Wallfish about life in Israel and

made general remarks about his career and about Israel and concluded by saying that

RNZ was looking forward to talking to him from Israel in the future.

The Group pointed out that it surely did not need to repeat that Jerusalem was not

part of Israel and that it was damaging to Palestinians to make out that it was. It

commented that it regarded Asher Wallfish as an avowed Zionist and accused him of

repeating the old Zionist shibboleths about peace being achieved by better

understanding between peoples, without mentioning the well justified Palestinian

anger at being subject to continuing occupation and dispossession. It then provided a

brief summary of the history of the state of Israel since 1948.

Stating that there was no excuse to try to make out that Jerusalem or any other

territory occupied by Israel since 1967 was part of Israel, the Group claimed that it

had been very generous in its claim because a more strict interpretation would include

all of Jerusalem as occupied. It sought from RNZ information on whether Wallfish

reported from West Jerusalem (part of Israel) or East Jerusalem.

Further Correspondence

In its initial response to the complaint, dated 11 November 1994, RNZ declared that

the complaint was received out of time and advised that it would not accept it. The

matter was clarified when the Group, on 15 November 1994 notified the Authority

that the complaint was hand delivered on the 20th day (ie within the statutory time

limit) although it was not received by the Chief Executive until the following day. The

Authority asked RNZ to use its discretion and accept the complaint.

The Group's letter of 15 November contained a modified copy of its letter of 1

November. It also sought a copy of the transcript of the 7 October item under the

Official Information Act and requested copies of any issued memoranda or

correspondence exchanged with Asher Wallfish in the past year concerning the

description of Israel, Jerusalem or the Occupied Territories. It also asked for the

complete street address of the Jerusalem studios from which Asher Wallfish filed his

items.

In its response, dated 19 December 1994, RNZ advised that there was no transcript of

the item, but that a copy might be available from one of the news services. With

respect to the request for copies of correspondence with Asher Wallfish, RNZ advised

that most communication between it and its correspondents takes place orally at the

time of the story being filed or by telephone for briefing purposes. It noted that it

was withholding one letter from Asher Wallfish and that its reason for doing so was

that it would require extensive excisions. In response to the request for the address of

the studios from which the reports were filed, RNZ advised that Asher Wallfish filed

his reports from his home and, as it had previously advised the Group, he lived

outside of Jerusalem on the highway to Tel Aviv.

RNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 16 February 1995

In the absence of specific standards being cited, RNZ advised that it had considered

the complaint under standard R1 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It noted that the complaint appeared to hinge on the complainant's contention that the

introduction to the studio interview said "...your correspondent Asher Wallfish

reported from Jerusalem on events in Israel." In fact, RNZ advised, the presenter

introduced him as "...normally Jerusalem-based Asher Wallfish who reports on events

in Israel." In RNZ's view, there was a difference between these two descriptions.

RNZ repeated that Wallfish filed his reports from his home, which was outside of

Jerusalem, but noted that many of his information contacts were in Israeli Jerusalem.

Commenting on the presenter's concluding remarks when he said:

...we'll be talking to you again, I'm sure - next time, from Israel,

RNZ maintained that the tone and emphasis clearly indicated that Wallfish would

resume his reports when he returned home and that it was not possible to take any

undesirable or misleading comments from that remark.

Referring to what it described as "unsubstantiated and somewhat emotive criticisms of

Wallfish", RNZ pointed out that the Broadcasting Act provided for complaints about

programmes and not about people. It wrote:

The complainant has made no specific allegation of inaccuracy against Wallfish

in the item concerned. Unspecific generalities cannot be the subject of a formal

complaint, and the formal complaints process does not provide to

complainants a licence to interfere with or dictate editorial judgment in such matters

as the item in question.

Repeating that Wallfish's home was outside of Jerusalem and that his customary

method of filing his reports was via his home telephone, RNZ reported that it declined

to uphold the complaint.

Wellington Palestine Group's Referral to the Authority - 7 March 1995

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

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

Act 1989.

In its referral, the Group commented on matters in previous decisions made by the

Authority and inquired about the computation of the 20 day deadline for complaints.

It then referred to the 7 October broadcast. The Group noted that the information

that Asher Wallfish filed his reports by telephone from his own home was revealed to

it in RNZ's letter of 19 December (which it had only just received, due to some

problems with the mail). However, the Group maintained that the broadcast was no

more accurate than before since it still confused the geography of Jerusalem and Israel

to make it sound as if Jerusalem was part of Israel.

It reported that it was even more concerned now that it knew the actual location for

Wallfish's reports, because on many occasions RNZ had introduced his reports with

expressions such as:

We have our correspondent Asher Wallfish joining us on the line from

Jerusalem now.

The Group advised that its complaint about a similar item, broadcast on 23 January

was now being withdrawn.

Finally, it sought from RNZ the broadcast of a clarification or programme about the

situation there, to make amends. It added that that evening another programme had

been broadcast which was sympathetic to Israel's threatened position in the world.

RNZ's Response to the Authority - 21 April 1995

In its response, RNZ dealt with points raised by the Group in relation to previous

complaints. Referring to the Group's request for it to broadcast a clarification or

programme "about the situation there". RNZ did not accept that was necessary and

regarded it as an attempt to pre-judge the outcome of this review.

It referred to its previous substantial response to the complaint.

Wellington Palestine Group's Final Comment - 12 May 1995

In its brief response, the Group reported that as recently as 8 May 1995, RNZ was

describing Wallfish as reporting from Jerusalem. It argued that by doing so it was

misleading the public.

Referring to the protracted correspondence on the subject of Asher Wallfish's

location, the Group wrote:

In light of clear information to the contrary, we quite naturally were led to

assume that Wallfish filed his reports from a Jerusalem based studio, rather

than

from his home. We are hardly to be blamed for unfounded complaints about

Radio New Zealand describing him as being in Israel, if we believed he was in

Jerusalem.

What concerns us is that despite protracted correspondence and your meeting

with RNZ, it has still failed to declare a policy of truthfully and clearly

describing where Wallfish reports from, let alone practising such a policy.