BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has upheld two complaints concerning the accuracy of a brief 1News item on 15 November 2024 about heightened security in Paris following violence the previous week around a football match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Amsterdam. The item reported, ‘Thousands of police are on the streets of Paris over fears of antisemitic attacks…That's after 60 people were arrested in Amsterdam last week when supporters of a Tel Aviv football team were pursued and beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters.’ TVNZ upheld the complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis the item ‘lacked the nuance’ of earlier reporting on the events, by emphasising the ‘antisemitic’ descriptor while omitting to mention the role of the Maccabi fans in the lead-up to the violence. The Authority agreed with this finding and further found the action taken by TVNZ was insufficient. The broadcaster accepted more care should have been taken, but did not appear to have taken any action in response or made any public acknowledgement of the inaccuracy. The remaining standards raised in the complaints were not breached or did not apply.

Upheld: Accuracy (action taken).

Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration, Balance, Fairness.

No Order 

The broadcast

[1]   A brief item broadcast on 1News on 15 November 2024 reported:

Newsreader:  Thousands of police are on the streets of Paris over fears of antisemitic attacks. With France's football team facing off against Israel earlier at the Stade de France, tensions have been running high. That's after 60 people were arrested in Amsterdam last week when supporters of a Tel Aviv football team were pursued and beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters. In Paris, 4,000 police officers are on patrol with the Israeli team protected by an elite anti-terrorism unit. President Emmanuel Macron has vowed France will not give in to antisemitism.

[2]  Accompanying the phrase, ‘when supporters of a Tel Aviv football team were pursued and beaten by pro-Palestinian protestors’, was a montage of clips showing the events in Amsterdam. This included one clip which had been the subject of a correction by Reuters (and some other news outlets) to indicate the creator of the video had actually observed Israeli fans attacking Amsterdam locals.¹  

The complaints

[3]  Michelle Jervis and Douglas Robertson complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards. Robertson also complained it breached the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards. Key aspects of their complaints are summarised below under the standards we consider most relevant to each point:

Accuracy

• It was ‘completely wrong’, ‘criminally negligent’ and complicit in genocide to say Jewish soccer fans were attacked by antisemitic Dutch Palestine supporters. (Robertson)
• The broadcast would have left viewers with the incorrect impression the violence ‘was unprovoked rather than retaliatory’ and Amsterdam locals were racist or antisemitic. (Jervis)
• The story had already been revised in substance by the BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, and Haaretz (an Israeli Newspaper), so it was surprising to see 1News report the incorrect version of events. (Jervis)
• The footage shown ‘supposedly of Israelis being attacked was the opposite. It was Israeli thugs attacking locals.’ (Robertson)
• TVNZ said the Reuters correction was issued a few days after airing the item. Jervis disputed this and was concerned that TVNZ was not sufficiently monitoring what other reputable news providers were saying. (Jervis, responding to TVNZ’s decision)

Balance

• The item was ‘one-sided and incomplete’ reporting on the violence involving Maccabi football fans in Amsterdam. (Jervis)
• It portrayed the Maccabi fans as victims of unprovoked attacks by Amsterdam residents and failed to mention the ‘racist, aggressive, and provocative’ behaviour by the Maccabi fans leading up to the incident, ‘which included assaulting taxi drivers, carrying weapons, disrespecting a minute of silence for [Spanish] flood victims, damaging private property, and chanting offensive slogans’. (Jervis)
• The item did not show ‘Israeli soccer hooligans rampaged through Amsterdam chanting genocidal intentions and celebrating the genocide of Palestinian children while attacking local people with steel pipes and pieces of wood, damaging property and instilling terror in the local Dutch population’, images which were captured by ‘reputable outlets like the BBC, Al Jazeera and Haaretz’. (Robertson)

Discrimination and denigration

• The report accused Dutch people of Arab descent of antisemitism, ‘while it was the Israeli fans who were engaging in antisemitic actions by attacking Semites (Arabs)’. (Robertson)

Fairness

• It was unfair to blame local Dutch people for something that ‘Israeli hooligans’ were doing. (Robertson)

[4]  On referral, Robertson also complained under the children’s interests standard. Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, we are only able to consider his complaint under the standards raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. The High Court has clarified that in certain circumstances:²

…it is permissible [for the Authority] to fill gaps… or cross boundaries between Code standards…but only if these things can be done within the wording, reasonably interpreted, of the original complaint, and if a proper consideration of the complaint makes that approach reasonably necessary…

[5]  We do not consider the wording of Robertson’s original complaint can reasonably be interpreted as raising issues under the children’s interests standard, which is concerned with the impact of the broadcast content on child viewers (rather than any children who may feature or be referred to in the broadcast). Accordingly, this standard is outside the scope of our decision.

The broadcaster’s response

Accuracy

[6]  TVNZ upheld one aspect of the complaints under the accuracy standard (reading this into Jervis’s complaint although it was not explicitly nominated), on the basis the brief reference to the Amsterdam incident in this story lacked the ‘nuance’ of previous 1News reporting which provided context for the violence and noted the aggravating conduct of Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters – therefore creating a ‘misleading characterisation’ of that incident in this item.

[7]  It did not uphold other aspects of the accuracy complaints noting:

• It is not disputed that Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were attacked by pro-Palestinian protestors following their team’s match against the Dutch team Ajax. The incident was widely reported by reputable outlets.³
• The mischaracterised video clip was ‘not material in the context, ie part of a montage and not specifically discussed; the issue with this story was the verbal description of the incident’.
• It was not inaccurate to attribute the heightened police presence to fears of antisemitic attacks noting a statement from President Macron’s office that his attendance at the Paris match ‘would send a message of fraternity and solidarity after the intolerable acts of antisemitism that followed the match in Amsterdam’.

[8]  TVNZ apologised to the complainants for the identified breach. Regarding remedial action in response, TVNZ advised it discussed the complaint with the 1News team who had acknowledged the concerns and agreed ‘more care should have been taken with the preparation of this story’. TVNZ considered ‘publication of a clarification was unnecessary’ as:

• Previous reporting by 1News provided an accurate characterisation of the Amsterdam incident (including online stories on 1news.co.nz sourced from Associated Press).⁴
• The issue was reported and discussed widely by other news outlets.
• Most viewers were likely to have had a reasonable understanding of the circumstances so there was ‘minimal potential for the misleading characterisation’ to have significantly misinformed the audience.
• In view of the above considerations the breach was ‘at the lower end of the scale’ and the action taken by 1News ‘has been proportional and appropriate’.

[9]  TVNZ said a contributing factor was the inaccurate information provided by Reuters and the correction arriving after the bulletin had gone to air. It advised, ‘Following your complaint, 1News has identified shortcomings in the process by which Reuters corrections are notified and has taken steps to improve this process.’

Remaining standards

[10]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaints under the remaining standards on the basis:

• Balance: 
  • Football violence in Amsterdam is not a controversial issue of public importance (CIPI) for New Zealanders. However, given its relevance to the Israel/Gaza conflict, which is a CIPI, the balance standard has some limited application.
  • Given the brevity of the story, it could not reasonably have included a range of viewpoints about the Amsterdam conflict.
  • Noting the breadth of other reporting on this issue, it is reasonable to expect viewers would have a broad understanding of the main perspectives.
• Discrimination and denigration: Given widespread reporting of the relevant events, viewers were likely to have understood the actions of pro-Palestinian supporters in Amsterdam did not occur spontaneously or without provocation. In any event, TVNZ did not agree the story encouraged discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community.
• Fairness: Robertson did not identify a person or organisation that was dealt with unfairly, noting the victims of Amsterdam violence are not an organisation covered by the standard, and the standard does not apply to states.

The standards

[11]  We consider the accuracy and balance standards most relevant to the issues raised by the complainants and have focused our decision accordingly. The remaining standards are briefly addressed at paragraph [31].

[12]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (Standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁵ The standard states:⁶

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[13]  The accuracy standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁷

[14]  The purpose of the balance standard (Standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience the arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁸ The standard states:⁹

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

Our analysis

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

[16]  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 and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.¹⁰

Accuracy

[17]  Where the broadcaster has upheld a complaint in the first instance, our role is to consider whether the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to remedy the breach.¹¹ The accuracy standard has two limbs:

• The first limb requires the broadcaster to make reasonable efforts to ensure the broadcast was not inaccurate on a material point of fact, or materially misleading. Determination of a complaint under this limb occurs in two steps. First, we must consider whether the broadcast was materially inaccurate or misleading. If there was a material inaccuracy, we then consider whether reasonable efforts were made to ensure the broadcast was accurate and did not mislead. It is under this first limb that the broadcaster has acknowledged a breach of the standard by emphasising the ‘antisemitism’ angle while omitting to mention the prior context to the Amsterdam events, namely, the role of the Maccabi fans in the violence.
• The second limb (the ‘corrections limb’) requires that ‘where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice’. TVNZ does not consider a correction was required in this case for the reasons outlined above (paragraph [8]), so it found no breach of this limb.

First limb

[18]  We considered whether we agreed with the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaints under accuracy on the basis the broadcast created a misleading characterisation of the violence in Amsterdam. To mislead in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.¹²

[19]  We agree with the broadcaster’s decision, finding the item was materially misleading and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, for the following reasons:

• The very brief (30-second) item framed the massing of police for the Paris match as a ‘response to fears of antisemitic attacks’, ‘after 60 people were arrested in Amsterdam last week when supporters of a Tel Aviv football team were pursued and beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters’. It also highlighted President Macron stating France would ‘not give in to antisemitism’, and the need for ‘protection’ of the Israeli team by an ‘elite anti-terrorism unit’.
• This framing and focus – presenting the Israeli team and their fans as innocent victims who needed protection, and continuing to emphasise the ‘antisemitism’ angle without any qualification – was misleading and in our view demonstrates carelessness, through failing to mention relevant factual context of the Maccabi fans’ actions and provocations leading up to the Amsterdam violence.
• The role of both sides in the violence had been extensively reported – and further details had come to light – by the time of this item a week after the story first broke in New Zealand on 8 November 2024 (and six days after 1News’ first report on it, on 9 November 2024).¹³ There was significant material available to TVNZ which should have led it to question the framing and focus of this item.
• We consider viewers’ understanding of the story would have been significantly altered if provided with this additional context, particularly if they were not already aware of the circumstances and controversy surrounding the Amsterdam events. Although widely reported elsewhere, this was only the second 1News broadcast on this topic after the first item aired on 9 November, six days earlier.
• Regarding the footage supplied by Reuters, which was later shown to be incorrectly labelled, we note TVNZ did not believe it to be material in the context, but at the same time considered that ‘inaccurate information’ supplied by Reuters contributed to the mischaracterisation of the violence in Amsterdam in the item. In our view, its placement in the broadcast, as part of the montage appearing when the newsreader was describing arrests after Tel Aviv supporters were beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters, supports and contributes to the materially misleading characterisation of the Amsterdam events overall. It was powerful imagery of the violence, and capable of leaving a strong impression on viewers in combination with the messaging around ‘antisemitism’ and the need to protect the Israeli team and fans in France. Accordingly, we consider that aspect to also be a contributing factor in finding the item was materially misleading.

Has TVNZ taken sufficient action to remedy the breach?

Should a correction have been made?

[20]  The ‘corrections limb’ of the standard states (our emphasis): 

In the event a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

Guideline 6.6 states: Where an obligation to correct a material error of fact arises, the broadcaster may correct it in such manner as is reasonable, eg via broadcast or its website, considering:

• the nature and impact of the error
• whether the relevant topic is the subject of ongoing updates and developments in which the correction could appear
• the impact of any other media coverage on the likelihood of the audience being misled
• when the error is identified, and any impact of the passage of time on its newsworthiness.

[21]  Given our findings above, in particular the wealth of information and coverage that was available to TVNZ in the week leading up to this broadcast on Friday 15 November 2024, we are not persuaded the breach was ‘at the lower end of the scale’. While on the one hand the availability of that information could be argued to have reduced the overall likelihood of the audience being misled by this single item, on the other, we think it demonstrates the carelessness in the preparation and framing of this item by 1News. The newsroom has accepted more care could – and in our view, should – have been taken. Having accepted that, in our view some public notification of the error and correction should have been issued for TVNZ’s audience, and we think the audience could reasonably expect such an acknowledgement in the circumstances. 

[22]  The broadcaster should have been ‘put on notice’ of the error sooner than 25 November when it began investigating these complaints, particularly in relation to the incorrect footage. We are concerned about the time delay given: the Reuters corrections were made 9 and 11 November; other outlets then began to correct their own coverage from 9 November (UK/Central Europe Time);¹⁴ another complaint about the incorrect footage was lodged with TVNZ on 13 November 2024; Robertson and Jervis complained about the 15 November item on 15 and 16 November; and the broadcaster began looking into these issues on 25 November.

[23]  We consider the broadcaster should have issued a correction, at this stage, even given the time that had passed since the 15 November broadcast. We acknowledge the passage of time may have impacted on the newsworthiness of the issue, and it is arguable the news cycle of the initial Amsterdam events had moved on by 25 November. While this may reduce the relevance of an immediate correction to the 15 November item, we note those arrested in Amsterdam appeared in court for sentencing in late December 2024¹⁵, providing another opportunity to report on, and correctly describe events. The 1News website, 1news.co.nz did carry online articles including one dated 15 November 2024; if that was posted after the broadcast found to be in breach, or updated with a corrective statement after the broadcaster investigated the complaints (noting it remained online until 15 December 2024), it might have been seen as ‘corrective action’.

[24]  Finally, we acknowledge TVNZ delivers its news through a hybrid model, combining digital-first publishing with traditional television broadcasting – with associated structural and resourcing challenges involved in meeting the distinct demands of both platforms. The digital approach allows for greater speed and agility, particularly in prioritising breaking news and operating under rolling deadlines, in contrast to the fixed scheduling of traditional 'appointment viewing' such as the 6pm bulletin. In this instance, while the correction was published on the Reuters Fact Check page before the 15 November broadcast, it was not noted in time to alter the broadcast. Nor was the updated digital content addressing the Reuters error incorporated into later reports on television or online. The Authority does not question TVNZ’s overall commitment to accuracy, but we consider this case demonstrates greater care and attention are needed when covering fast-moving international stories within scheduled news bulletins.

[25]  For these reasons we are satisfied that requiring TVNZ to take due care in its framing of a story that carried public interest and was more broadly linked to matters of international importance, does not unreasonably restrict its right to freedom of expression.

Was the action taken by TVNZ otherwise sufficient?

[26]  Regarding the remedial action taken, we note:

• TVNZ upheld the accuracy complaints (having read in the accuracy standard for Jervis’s complaint) and apologised to the complainants.
• It acknowledged the concerns and agreed more care should have been taken with the preparation of the story. However, it did not say what the newsroom did in response or how that lack of care has been addressed to prevent similar future breaches.
• The breach was attributed in part to Reuters ‘incorrect information’ and the Reuters correction ‘arriving’ after the bulletin had gone to air. Although TVNZ only became aware of that correction on 25 November, we note the correction was issued by Reuters on 9 November and updated on 11 November, well before the 15 November item.
• TVNZ advised it has taken steps to improve its process for notification of Reuters corrections. However, this only responds to the incorrect footage, not the item’s misleading characterisation of the events in the bulletin.

[27]  As we have discussed above, the material inaccuracy in the item has not been publicly notified or corrected by TVNZ to date. Given the high public interest and heightened sensitivity around reporting of such matters, there should have been some public notification of the error. Therefore we find TVNZ’s actions taken concerning the accuracy breach were insufficient. 

Balance

[28]  Several criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.¹⁶

[29]  It is arguable the broadcast related to a controversial issue of public importance, given it concerned alleged and anticipated racial tensions and violence which were linked by some commentators to Gaza and the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. However, we have previously recognised brief news reports may not constitute a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard.¹⁷  This broadcast was a very brief (approximately 30 second) report on increased police presence safety measures in Paris before the football match against Israel. Including brief reference to and footage of events in Amsterdam did not turn the broadcast into a ‘discussion’ of that violence as contemplated under the balance standard. Therefore, the balance standard does not apply – but we consider the complainants’ concerns about the absence of relevant background facts and ‘one-sided’ depiction of the Amsterdam violence have been appropriately addressed under the accuracy standard.

[30]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaints under the balance standard.

Remaining standards

[31]  The remaining standards, raised by Robertson, did not apply or were not breached for the following reasons:

• Discrimination and denigration: Robertson’s complaint suggested the report accused ‘Dutch people of Arab descent’ of antisemitism. However, the report did not mention the ethnicity or nationality of those responsible for the violence in Amsterdam, only that 60 people had been arrested after actions by ‘pro-Palestinian protesters’. It could not be interpreted as encouraging discrimination against Dutch people of Arab descent.
• Fairness: Robertson’s complaint asserted it was unfair to blame ‘local Dutch people for something that Israeli hooligans were doing’. However, the fairness standard requires broadcasters to deal fairly with ‘any individual or organisation’ taking part or referred to in a broadcast. ‘Local Dutch people’ are not an organisation for these purposes. Robertson’s concern about any misrepresentation of who was responsible for the violence is better addressed under the accuracy standard.  

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaints that the action taken by Television New Zealand Ltd, having upheld a breach of Standard 6 (Accuracy) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand in relation to an item broadcast on 1News on 15 November 2024, was insufficient.

[32]  Having upheld part of the complaints, we may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

[33]  In determining whether orders are warranted and the type of order to impose, we consider the following factors: 

• the seriousness of the breach and the number of upheld aspects of the complaint 
• the degree of harm caused to any individual, section of society or the audience generally 
• the objectives of the upheld standard(s) 
• the attitude and actions of the broadcaster in relation to the complaint (eg whether the broadcaster upheld the complaint and/or took mitigating steps; or whether the broadcaster disputed the standards breach and/or aggravated the breach and any harm caused) 
• whether the decision will sufficiently remedy the breach and give guidance to broadcasters, or whether something more is needed to achieve a meaningful remedy or to send a signal to broadcasters 
• past decisions and/or orders in similar cases. 

[34]  We do not consider an order is warranted in this case. Publication of our decision is sufficient to publicly acknowledge and correct the breach of the accuracy standard, and to censure the broadcaster. Additionally, it will give guidance and set clear expectations for TVNZ and other broadcasters to ensure the framing of stories does not mislead the public, and that timely corrections are issued on matters of significant public interest.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
29 April 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Jervis’s original complaint – 16 November 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision Jervis – 12 December 2024

3  Jervis’s referral to Authority – 5 January 2025

4  Robertson’s original complaint – 15-18 November 2024

5  TVNZ’s decision Robertson – 13 December 2024

6  Robertson’s referral to Authority – 30 December 2024

7  TVNZ no further comment – 31 January 2025

8  TVNZ clarifications re Reuters correction – 20-21 February 2025

¹ The relevant clip, syndicated by Reuters, had been the subject of a correction indicating it did not depict Israeli fans as ‘victims’. The correction is no longer available on Reuter’s online Factcheck page. The Guardian corrected their 8 November story on 9 November:  “Amsterdam arrests made after attacks on Israeli football fans – video report” The Guardian (online ed, 9 November 2024); @iAnnet, posts on X, 8- 15 November 2024 <x.com/iAnnetnl>
² See Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Limited, CIV-2011-485-1110 at [62]
³ 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) Anthony Deutsch and Bart H Meijer “Amsterdam bans demos after ‘anti-semitic squads attack Israeli soccer fans” RNZ (online ed, 9 November 2024)
⁴ In its decision on the complaints, TVNZ provided links to those stories, however the links were only live for one month due to associated rights expiring. TVNZ provided full transcripts of those articles to the Authority.  
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Guideline 6.2
⁸ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁹ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹¹ See, for example, Muir & Knight and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-008 at [17] and Horowhenua District Council and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2018-105 at [19]
¹² Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
¹³ See, for example, Jon Henley “Israel football fans and the violence in Amsterdam: what we know” The Guardian (online ed, 12 November 2024)
¹⁴ For example, The Guardian at 18:22pm 9 November 2024 (07:22am, 10 November 2024 NZDT) “Israeli football fans attacked” The Guardian  (online ed, corrections, 9 November 2024) <theguardian.com> /
¹⁵ Ashifa Kassam “Five men found guilty over Amsterdam football violence” The Guardian (online ed, 24 December 2024)
¹⁶ Guideline 5.1
¹⁷ See Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-045 at [10] and OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [10]