BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority¹ has not upheld two complaints under the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards about a Saturday Morning interview with the Head of Programs for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) discussing humanitarian crises in Lebanon and Gaza. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard because: the broadcast was focussed on the humanitarian effects of the conflicts; it was clearly signalled as being from MSF’s perspective; the audience also could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints (on the relevant issue and conflicts more generally) from other media coverage; and the broadcast was not required to present allegations surrounding MSF’s neutrality. Regarding accuracy, the Authority found the likelihood of a listener being misled by omission of any of the identified perspectives and context was significantly reduced, noting the broadcast’s narrow focus and other media coverage of the conflict. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 2 May 2026 broadcast of Saturday Morning on RNZ National featured an interview with the Head of Programs for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Australia and New Zealand. The segment, lasting approximately 16 minutes, opened with the following:

RNZ presenter:          Médecins Sans Frontières says the New Zealand Government is failing to protect the international rule of law when it comes to Gaza. This comes amid warnings water is being weaponised in Gaza and the UN estimates nearly a quarter of Lebanon’s population faces acute hunger as Israel continues its strikes there. This comes as Save the Children is warning a plague of rats, mice and insects in camps for displaced people are risking disease outbreaks. MSF Head of Programs […] was in New Zealand for a few days this week and I caught up with him for an update. 

MSF spokesperson:  The world’s focus has shifted away from what’s happening in Gaza. It’s very much looking at the war in Iran and the horrible developments we’ve seen over recent weeks in southern Lebanon and now throughout Lebanon. But coming to Gaza, yes, you’re right, theoretically we have a ceasefire in place and Palestinians have noticed a decrease in the number of attacks but there are still daily attacks, there’s still daily casualties presenting at the medical facilities where MSF works. So, whilst there’s a reduction in the number of casualties as a direct result of Israeli airstrikes and sniper attacks and whatnot, it is by no means a ceasefire. It’s a ceasefire that is being violated daily by the Israelis. And that’s largely going underreported. And unfortunately, as we say, Palestinians are still being killed and maimed on a daily basis. 

[2]  The interviewer asked about the ‘huge number of people’ displaced in Lebanon who ‘maybe don’t even know if they have a home to return to’:

MSF spokesperson:  Exactly, and very gravely, what we’re seeing now playing out in Lebanon is very similar to the developments we saw in Gaza over the last two years, where we're seeing the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure by the Israelis. They’re going village by village, road by road, health centre by health centre, demolishing the infrastructure that’s essential for everyday life. And so, Lebanese people from those villages, particularly in the south where the focus of Israeli attacks has been, it’s largely unrecognisable. We’re seeing that the people that unfortunately couldn’t flee are in grave danger, that people have stayed behind and they’re being subjected to evacuation orders with ridiculously short timeframes. We’re seeing people who have evacuated and have moved to temporary accommodation elsewhere – shelters, centres for displaced people throughout Lebanon – with great uncertainty about whether they will be able to return home, whether they’ll have access to livelihoods, whether they will have access to schools and medical care, if they do, at any point in the future, get the green light to return to some of those places. 

RNZ presenter:          Where are people actually living? The people who are there. 

MSF spokesperson:  It’s not really a word you’d use, that they’re ‘living’. They are on hold, they’re displaced, they’re in a state of desperation […] We had seen the focus of the attacks in the south, but in recent days and weeks, those attacks have spread to all areas of Beirut, to the Beqaa Valley, to other areas throughout Lebanon. That means that there is really nowhere that feels safe […]. They want to go back to the land, to the house, to the communities, the village that they came from, and there seems no prospect of that in the short term. 

[3]  The discussion briefly covered where displaced peoples are staying – ‘tent cities’, ‘facilities throughout Lebanon that are being used as temporary shelters and accommodation’, and with relatives and friends – before turning to infrastructure: 

RNZ presenter:          You mentioned the infrastructure, and of course people will remember the pictures that have been on TV and indeed social media with infrastructure smashed, buildings reduced to rubble. […] [B]ut also water is increasingly becoming a bit of a flash point, partly because the infrastructure of the water plants has been damaged or destroyed. […] When people are trying to repair those, they are coming under renewed attack. What does that tell you? 

MSF spokesperson:  It tells us that the state actor – in this case, which is acting – is acting in defiance of international humanitarian law... 

RNZ presenter:          This is Israel?

MSF spokesperson:  ...the norms, and the standards that apply in conflict. Yes, it’s the government of Israel, the armed forces of Israel. It’s very clear in international humanitarian law that civilian infrastructure is not a target, that health facilities are not a target. Schools are not a target. And yet we see the systematic bombing of such infrastructure throughout Gaza and now in Lebanon. And indeed, in the war in Iran, we’ve seen Israeli and US forces targeting that infrastructure that they know puts pressure on the host government, on the Iranians or on the Lebanese government or on the Palestinian Authority, to be able to repair and restore that infrastructure before people can come back and inhabit those locations. So, what we’re seeing is, as you mentioned, water being used as an instrument of war. Access to water is being weaponised. 

RNZ presenter:          So, if clean water supplies are increasingly under threat and being weaponised, people are having to choose between drinking, cooking, washing on a daily basis and never having enough to be able to do all of those three things.

MSF spokesperson:  Exactly, that’s very much the scenario we saw throughout Gaza and now we’re seeing in Lebanon over the past months. We see that in our health clinics, people presenting with skin infections, people presenting with other chronic health issues that are affected by their inadequate nutrition and their inadequate intake of water. So, we have hard evidence suggesting that this is a direct result of the displacement and of the war. It’s something that states supporting Israel will argue, they’ll say there is humanitarian access, there is the ability for the population that is displaced to access basic needs. But that’s something we’re calling out as MSF. We’re saying there is not enough humanitarian access, that the essential supplies, the life-saving, the life-preserving supplies – food, water, shelter – are not available in adequate quantities. And that the states that stand by and allow this to happen with impunity for Israel are also in violation of international humanitarian law. These are war crimes that we’re seeing playing out on a daily basis. 

[4]  On the subject of how medical personnel and civilians are coping, the MSF representative said: 

People are not coping well. And again, it’s directly a result of the restrictions on humanitarian aid that have been put in place by the Israeli authorities. So, by starving Palestinians and Lebanese people of access to basic humanitarian supplies, they’re able to influence where those people move. They’re able to influence when and if they return to their lands. And so this is something that MSF and the humanitarian sector have been calling out. This is not how it’s meant to be. International humanitarian law guarantees humanitarian access, and yet what MSF is facing and what most international NGOs are facing are obstruction, deregistration, direct attacks on our staff and on our facilities. And this is happening in full view of the world. This is being live-streamed. And yet states, including the Government of New Zealand, are not doing enough to speak out to protect the rule of law, to use that middle power that they have to stand up for what’s right, to protect the resolutions and the agreements that have been in place through UN resolutions for decades, and to call out the Israelis and the US and others who are allowing the norms to slip and who are allowing human life to be lost unnecessarily. 

[5]  Discussion of the ‘trickle’ rather than ‘flow’ of humanitarian supplies into the Gaza Strip took place. The MSF representative indicated the Israeli Government has ‘prioritised items that are of high commercial value and will be available at inflated high prices to Palestinians’ such as junk food. He added:

And this is a pattern we’ve seen for a long time. Humanitarian aid supplies have been subject to an extremely high degree of scrutiny. They’ve been held up for months and months on the borders, usually on the excuse that they’re a multiple-purpose or double-purpose item. So, for example, if Médecins Sans Frontières wanted to bring in scalpels for surgery, they would say that that could be weaponised, that the seal and that scalpel is a forbidden product, it can’t come in. So, we’ve faced the dire situation where our doctors and nurses are providing medical care with grossly inadequate supplies. We don’t have adequate dressings for wounds. We don’t have anaesthetics for operating on patients who are in need of painkillers during an operation. We don’t have the basic supplies and getting those in has been extremely hard. We’ve worked very closely with the WHO and with other global health actors to put pressure on Israel and the US to allow in those medical supplies. But there’s still a fraction of what’s needed to be able to treat the type, the severity, and the number of casualties that we see at health clinics. And that, again, it’s another way of weaponising healthcare in support of the strategic aims of a military operation. 

[6]  The interview closed with the presenter asking about the difficulty ‘keep[ing] this plight in the headlines when there is so much bad news, when there’s always another war to displace it’, and the role of countries such as New Zealand ‘in supporting these humanitarian efforts’. The MSF representative said:

It is hard to keep the Gaza crisis in the headlines at the moment, but because of the strong community links that we have in countries like New Zealand to people from Palestine or people coming from other country contexts where there’s an ongoing conflict or there’s been a terrible natural disaster or a health epidemic, we are able to mobilise that knowledge and understanding and to create that sense of empathy. […] Whether or not the politicians reflect those values and the concerns of the people is another issue, and whether they’re willing to allocate funding and resources towards a redevelopment effort of the scale that will be needed in Gaza or in southern Lebanon is another question. And of course, it's a really hard question right now because we're all facing a cost-of-living crisis […] And so, it makes it extra important that New Zealand voices are heard in the lead up to an election in New Zealand later this year. We need to make sure that the humanitarian aid budget of the New Zealand government is protected, it is not further cut, that it is actually increased if possible and the parties come together and recognise that this shouldn’t be a politically divisive issue. It should be something all parties should be able to come together on and we should have multi-partisan, bipartisan support for protecting an aid budget and protecting New Zealand’s power as a middle power in the world, as a state that’s looked to for leadership on issues around humanitarianism, human rights, and international humanitarian law. 

The complaints

[7]  Nevan Lancaster and the New Zealand Jewish Council (NZJC) complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. Lancaster also raised the fairness standard.

[8]  Though the complaints differed slightly in focus, both alleged:

a)  The broadcast, in breach of the relevant standards:

i)  erroneously presented MSF as neutral and did not examine controversy surrounding the organisation

ii)  omitted relevant contextual material, thereby presenting Israel’s operations in Gaza and Lebanon as gratuitous.

b)  The broadcaster, Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ), has not proven that balance has been achieved over time within the period of current interest.

[9]  NZJC also complained the interviewer failed to challenge or question other assertions made by the MSF representative.

[10]  Given Lancaster and NZJC provided detailed submissions in support of their complaints, we have outlined the key aspects of each complaint below.

MSF’s neutrality

Lancaster

[11]  MSF was (falsely) presented as a ‘purely neutral humanitarian actor’ without reference to:

a)  ‘documented instances of their personnel’s involvement with’ Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

b)  the organisation’s ‘refusal to provide staff lists for security vetting’ in Israel – ‘a standard requirement for NGOs in conflict zones to ensure aid workers are not active combatants’

c)  MSF staff being told ‘not to conduct background checks of Palestinian employees, and that Arab staff expressed concern that being in the same room as operatives put all at risk’ – as reported by The Atlantic in 2025

d)  MSF’s former secretary-general accusing the organisation ‘of becoming “accomplices of Hamas” and abandoning its neutral humanitarian principles’

e)  NGO Monitor’s report into MSF which, in part, found that in its public statements from 2023 to 2026, MSF ‘applied the word “genocide” exclusively to Israeli actions’ but did not use the same label in reference to other conflicts or crises.

[12]  Further, the interviewer did not challenge or correct the MSF representative’s ‘false’ statements about the organisation’s neutrality.

[13]  ‘The issue is not that MSF’s views were broadcast – it is that MSF was implicitly presented as a credible, neutral humanitarian source, when the organisation’s own neutrality is seriously and documentably compromised.’ 

[14]  MSF has a ‘clear conflict of interest’. ‘MSF’s calls for New Zealand to pressure Israel serve to protect MSF’s own operational access, which has been compromised by their inability to guarantee the neutrality of their own staff.’

NZJC

[15]  MSF is ‘an organisation that has serious questions to answer about its neutrality’. It is not a ‘neutral medical expert’ but instead ‘an activist group’. However, the interview relied ‘heavily on MSF’s apparent authority’ and did not examine controversy surrounding the organisation and ‘its move from strict humanitarian neutrality into overt political advocacy’.²

[16]  Questioning the interviewee on this point is ‘fundamental to the entire piece’, and listeners were not afforded ‘important context necessary to evaluate the claims being made’. 

Other failures to challenge the interviewee (NZJC only)

[17]  The MSF representative ‘made serious claims regarding:

a)  the collapse of Gaza’s health system

b)  failures to uphold international humanitarian law

c)  insufficient accountability

d)  lack of consistency/selective application

e)  and the need for stronger international action.’

[18]  Yet, these ‘were not critically interrogated’. The interviewer continuously accepted the interviewee’s assertions ‘without challenge or probing of key omissions and adopted ‘leading or assumptive questioning’ which did not interrogate ‘competing interpretations or complexities’.

[19]  Crucially, the interviewee was not challenged or critiqued once, nor was one competing perspective presented.

Omission of relevant context

Lancaster

[20]  The interviewer ‘allowed MSF to characterise the conflict as a “normalisation of the unacceptable” without providing the necessary context of the military necessity driving Israeli operations’. For example, the broadcast did not mention ‘systematic violations’ by Hamas of international humanitarian law (IHL), including:

a)  ‘the use of medical facilities […] as military command centres’

b)  ‘the launch of rockets from civilian safe zones’

c)  ‘using [schools] and hospitals […] as weapon storage facilities’.

[21]  By extension, the report ‘applied the “Rule of Law” standard exclusively to Israel’s response while exempting Hamas from any legal or moral scrutiny’.

NZJC

[22]  The broadcast did not mention or question:

• ‘Hamas and Hezbollah and their obligations under international humanitarian law (there was not one mention of these terrorist groups)
• the embedding of military infrastructure within civilian areas
• the use of hospitals or civilian facilities by armed groups
• the operational realities of urban warfare
• the difficulties of attribution and verification in wartime
• global comparisons such as in Ukraine, Yemen or Sudan
• the evidentiary basis for particular assertions made by MSF
• the nature of MSF’s role.’

[23]  The interview was framed ‘around the assumption that the “international rule of law” is being eroded in a manner implicitly and solely attributable to Israel and insufficiently opposed by governments such as New Zealand’ – but IHL ‘simply cannot be understood or applied without reference to the other parties to a conflict or the operational circumstances. Yet listeners were presented with a one-directional account lacking essential context.’

[24]  ‘The cumulative effect of the interviewer’s framing, the absence of devil’s advocate questions, and the omission of contextual issues resulted in advocacy rather than a probing interview.’

Balance over time

Lancaster

[25]  RNZ has not achieved balance over time. ‘The false claims were not rebutted in this broadcast, and they were not rebutted “across coverage” either.’

[26]  Claims that balance had been achieved over time disregard the accuracy standard. ‘The fact that RNZ ran other segments featuring other perspectives does not retroactively correct misinformation broadcast in this interview.’

[27]  The Authority should compel RNZ to provide ‘a breakdown of airtime allocation’ regarding ‘Palestinian or pro-MSF perspectives versus those presenting Israeli governmental, military, legal, or security perspectives across the period of current interest’.

[28]  A substantial portion of the complainant’s 27 May 2026 submissions regarded an allegedly ‘persistent pattern of behaviour […] in minimising and presenting a false picture when it comes to [RNZ’s] international reports around both Ukraine and Israel’. The complainant asked the Authority to ‘consider this pattern when evaluating RNZ’s assurances that its coverage is balanced and that its complaint-handling processes are adequate’.

[29]  In response to RNZ’s 11 June submissions, stating Lancaster’s 27 May submissions contained ‘a range of broader concerns about RNZ, other broadcasters, and various organisations’ which ‘fall outside the scope of this complaint’, the complainant said RNZ were trying to ‘have the argument both ways’. ‘RNZ cannot rely on the breadth of its wider coverage to defeat my complaint, and then, when I examine that wider coverage and demonstrate it is itself unbalanced, declare the wider coverage out of scope.’ Since balance is ‘assessed across coverage within the period of current interest’, wider coverage of the issue is ‘squarely relevant to the question before the Authority’.

NZJC

[30]  In response to RNZ’s examples of related coverage (see paragraph [36] below), NZJC questioned the relevance of some of the pieces and whether they provided balance on the issue.

The broadcaster’s response

[31]  RNZ did not uphold the complaints. Its reasons, and further submissions on the complaints, are summarised below.

Balance

[32]  The broadcast was a ‘focused interview’ with a MSF representative and discussed the organisation’s ‘humanitarian’, ‘operational’ and ‘advocacy’ experiences and perspectives. It did not purport to provide a ‘comprehensive analysis’ of the conflicts’ origins, the parties’ conduct, nor the conflicts’ legal, military or geopolitical context.

[33]  The interviewee was ‘clearly identified’ as an MSF representative, ‘an international humanitarian organisation operating in Gaza’. ‘In that context, listeners could reasonably be expected to understand they were hearing the perspective of that organisation and not a comprehensive examination of all aspects of the wider conflict.’

[34]  ‘The balance standard does not require every interview touching on a controversial issue to include all competing viewpoints, nor does it require interviewers to inject opposing political or military narratives into every answer given by a guest. The Authority has historically recognised broadcasters’ editorial discretion in relation to interview angle, guest selection, and the manner in which balance is achieved across coverage within the period of current interest.’

[35]  Balance may be achieved across the period of current interest – and the broader conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon have been the topic of extensive and ongoing coverage across RNZ’s broader news coverage. This coverage has included:

a)  a range of perspectives, such as those of the Israeli government and military (eg their security positions), international legal commentators, and international correspondents

b)  various components of the conflicts, like the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023, hostage-related coverage, and the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah more generally.

[36]  RNZ provided ‘a brief list’ of interviews, analysis, and coverage during the relevant period.³

Accuracy

[37]  The broadcast primarily concerned the ‘humanitarian conditions’ in Gaza and Lebanon and MSF’s views and experiences of those matters. It did not claim to present a comprehensive, definitive account of all military, legal, political, or security dimensions of the conflicts. In that context, the omission of the material referred to by the complainants – including about Hamas, Hezbollah, and critiques of MSF – did not render the broadcast materially misleading.

[38]  These conflicts have garnered extensive ongoing coverage across RNZ and other outlets. Audiences were therefore unlikely to have been left with the impression the conflicts occurred in a vacuum or did not involve other actors. 

[39]  In the context of this interview, RNZ was not required ‘to canvass contested external allegations concerning alleged militant activity in or around hospitals in Gaza’. ‘Those matters were not the subject of the interview and were not material to listeners’ understanding of the discussion.’

Fairness – Lancaster only

[40]  RNZ did not consider the fairness standard was engaged in the manner Lancaster described. The complainant’s concerns pertaining to the ‘alleged conduct of individuals or organisations not the subject of the interview […] fall outside the scope of this broadcast’ and the standard. The interview ‘did not make findings or assertions of the kind’ the complainant suggested.

Preliminary issues

[41]  Lancaster provided detailed submissions on RNZ’s allegedly inaccurate and biased reporting of Ukraine and Israel over time. However, the Authority’s jurisdiction is programme-specific. Our role is to determine whether the broadcast nominated by the complainants breached broadcasting standards.⁴

[42]  The complainant also suggested RNZ was trying to have it ‘both ways’ by relying on other reporting for some purposes but refusing to consider arguments around the unbalanced or inaccurate nature of these reports.

[43]  Other media coverage is relevant to the assessment of the 2 May programme’s compliance with the balance standard. This is because the balance standard requires broadcasters 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’. RNZ’s reliance on other coverage of the ‘broader Israel/Gaza conflict’ was in this context. What is not relevant in the consideration of a complaint is to examine whether other broadcasts complied with the standards – which is the essence of the complainant’s argument around patterns over time.

[44]  Accordingly, this decision does not address the broader complaints about RNZ’s reporting over time.

The standards

[45]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁵ The standard states:⁶

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.

[46]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁷ The standard states:⁸

• 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.

[47]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁹ The standard states:¹⁰

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

[48]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Freedom of expression and public interest

[49]  In determining whether a broadcast has breached broadcasting standards, the Authority’s role is to weigh the right to freedom of expression against the actual or potential harm caused by the broadcast.

[50]  Freedom of expression, enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, is fundamental to the operation of our liberal democratic society. It includes the broadcaster’s right to impart, and the audience’s right to receive, ideas or information. This right, whilst important, is not absolute. It can be limited – but only where such limits ‘can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’.¹¹ Accordingly, the Authority may intervene and uphold a complaint only where the right to freedom of expression, including the value and public interest in the relevant speech, is outweighed by the broadcast’s harm.

[51]  The 2 May broadcast carried high value and public interest. It informed listeners of the human costs and suffering resulting from conflict in Gaza and Lebanon. Presenting these perspectives offers listeners insight into aspects of the conflict that are less readily accessible, given the difficulty gathering accounts and information from active conflict zones. In light of the broadcast’s high value, we would require a correspondingly high level of harm before intervening to limit the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

[52]  There is a risk of harm in reporting inaccurate, misleading or unbalanced information on controversial, complicated, and long-running conflicts such as those in Gaza and Lebanon. In this case, however, we have not identified such harm.

[53]  We therefore do not uphold the complaints under the relevant broadcasting standards. Our reasons follow.

Balance

[54]  The complainants allege the broadcast breached the balance standard because it:

a)  presented MSF as neutral and did not examine controversy surrounding the organisation’s alleged move away from neutrality

b)  omitted important context, portraying Israel as gratuitously attacking these regions

c)  did not challenge the MSF representative on his claims or omissions

d)  did not present alternative or competing perspectives (particularly that of Israel).

[55]  Additionally, RNZ provided no evidence that it presented significant viewpoints on the relevant issue in other reporting within the period of current interest.

[56]  Consistent with the Authority’s previous decisions,¹² we consider the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance – namely, the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon. Accordingly, the standard applies.

[57]  However, the standard’s requirement to present significant perspectives may be reduced or negated entirely where the broadcast is clearly introduced and presented as:

• not being a balanced examination of an issue
• being from a particular perspective
• narrowly focussed on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.¹³

[58]  This was a broadcast of that nature:

• It did not purport to present a balanced examination of the issues and complexities surrounding the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon generally.
• It was clearly signalled, in its introduction and throughout, as approaching the issue from the position of MSF – an organisation that operates in these regions.¹⁴ Any references to alleged breaches of ‘international rule of law’ or ‘international humanitarian law’ by Israel, the US and others were made squarely in this context, from MSF’s point of view, in light of the organisation’s experiences in the relevant regions.
• It focussed on a particular aspect of the conflicts – the experiences and suffering of civilians in the areas – rather than the broader issues identified by the complainants.

[59]  The audience is likely to understand there may be other perspectives on the points discussed. The balance standard reflects New Zealand’s diverse media landscape and the increased flows of information available from a range of sources on a plethora of topics. It is designed to provide protection where balancing viewpoints on a given controversial issue have not been available across time, different programmes or different media. Consequently, the Authority acknowledges that complaints under this standard will rarely be upheld.¹⁵ As we have recognised previously,¹⁶ the ongoing conflict in Gaza and Lebanon, including Israel’s reasons for its offensive in these areas, has been and continues to be frequently covered by RNZ and other media.¹⁷ It is therefore reasonable to expect audiences to be conscious of significant perspectives and context on the issues canvassed in the broadcast, and the conflicts more generally.

[60]  A central component of both complaints is that the broadcast erroneously presented MSF as neutral and omitted necessary context regarding its actions. We disagree.

[61]  In the context of the broadcast, claims that MSF has abandoned its core principles of neutrality and impartiality are not ‘significant viewpoints’ on the issue canvassed. The interview was not an examination of MSF and its internal operations necessitating reference to these allegations. Further, MSF’s role as a humanitarian NGO does not mean the interview was inherently posited as a balanced examination of all significant viewpoints on the issue.

[62]  MSF’s Head of Programs spoke plainly about the organisation’s first-hand experiences in Gaza and Lebanon and its subsequent concerns about the conflict’s impacts on civilians. That was the focus of the interview. Notably, neither complainant alleged these comments and observations were inaccurate or misleading.

[63]  In any event, MSF has responded publicly to these accusations, stating it ‘operates with a spirit of neutrality and does not take sides in armed conflicts’ but ‘may publicly denounce and criticise obstacles to our humanitarian work and violations of international law’.¹⁸ This stance aligns with the position adopted by MSF’s Head of Programs in the relevant Saturday Morning broadcast.

[64]  Finally, to the extent the interview contained ‘leading or assumptive questioning’ as opposed to ‘meaningful challenge’, that is a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion. The balance standard does not dictate how perspectives should be presented or what questions must be asked to elicit those perspectives – so long as the content broadcast does not breach broadcasting standards.¹⁹

[65]  We therefore find no breach of the balance standard.

Accuracy

[66]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. First, whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading, and second, whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[67]  The complainants have not identified specific statements they considered inaccurate. Lancaster submitted the MSF representative made ‘false claims’ about the organisation’s neutrality, including its alleged connection to Hamas and PIJ. However, we did not identify such material in the broadcast.

[68]  Instead, the harm alleged under this standard is that listeners may have been materially misled through the omission of questioning and context on:

a)  the issue of MSF’s neutrality, including alleged connections to Hamas and PIJ and ‘refusal to provide staff lists for security vetting’

b)  Hamas and Hezbollah’s obligations under, and alleged violations of, international humanitarian law

c)  the use of human shields

d)  ‘the operational realities of urban warfare’

e)  ‘the difficulties of attribution and verification in wartime’

f)  ‘global comparisons such as in Ukraine, Yemen or Sudan’

g)  the evidentiary basis for MSF’s assertions.

[69]  The standard is concerned only with materially misleading (or inaccurate) points. To ‘mislead’, in the context of the accuracy standard, means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.²⁰ Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.²¹

[70]  Most of the complainants’ concerns relate to an alleged absence of necessary context, contributing to a misleading portrayal of the conflict in Lebanon and Gaza (eg by implying Israel’s attacks were gratuitous). These matters are best addressed under the balance standard and have been considered in our analysis above.²²

[71]  Regardless, given the item’s nature and context, we are satisfied listeners would not have been misled by the omission of information the complainants wished to be included.²³ The item was narrowly focussed on the experiences and suffering of civilians in the relevant areas. Neither complainant has alleged broadcast material in this ambit – ie the humanitarian situation in Gaza and Lebanon – was inaccurate or misleading.²⁴ These conflicts have also been broadly covered across national and international media, reducing the likelihood of the audience being misled by this one item, in isolation.²⁵

[72]  So long as broadcasters comply with applicable broadcasting standards, the selection of programmes, opinions, and interviewees to feature is a matter of editorial discretion – and this includes RNZ’s decision to interview an MSF representative and centre the discussion on the human cost of the relevant conflicts.²⁶ We have found no harm under the accuracy standard that outweighs freedom of expression, noting the value and public interest in the broadcast, and accordingly no breach of the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[73]  Lancaster, in addition to the accuracy and balance standards, raised the fairness standard as having been breached, alleging the broadcast was ‘discriminatory towards the Israeli perspective’.

[74]  The standard applies only to individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast – and we have previously found that nations (eg Israel) are not ‘organisations’ for the purposes of the standard.²⁷ Accordingly, the standard is not engaged in this instance.

[75]   In any event, we consider the essence of the complainant’s concerns under this standard is that the broadcast omitted a significant viewpoint and necessary context. Such complaints are more appropriately dealt with under the balance and accuracy standards and have been addressed above.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaints. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

John Gillespie
Acting Chair
30 September 2026    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined these complaints:

Lancaster

1  Lancaster’s original complaint – 2 May 2026

2  RNZ’s decision – 8 May 2026

3  Lancaster’s referral to the Authority – 8 May 2026

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 26 May 2026

5  Lancaster’s further submissions – 27 May 2026

6  RNZ’s further submissions – 11 June 2026

7  Lancaster’s further submissions – 18 June 2026

8  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 28 July 2026

NZJC

9  NZJC’s original complaint – 12 May 2026

10  RNZ’s decision – 18 May 2026

11  NZJC’s referral to the Authority – 24 May 2026

12  RNZ’s response to the referral – 28 May 2026

13  NZJC’s further comments – 22 June 2026

14  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 25 June 2026

Additional correspondence

15  RNZ providing examples of related coverage – 7 September 2026

16  NZJC’s comments in response – 17 September 2026

¹ Susie Staley declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint.
² Citing: Danielle Greyman-Kennard “‘No longer a trustworthy humanitarian organization’: NGO Monitor releases report on MSF’s failings” The Jerusalem Post (online ed, 29 April 2026); Alain Destexhe “DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS: An Accomplice of Hamas?” (18 December 2023); Jane Prinsley “Revealed: MSF accused by own staff of Israel ‘obsession’ that breaches pledge of neutrality” The Jewish Chronicle (online ed, 30 March 2026); and Gerald M Steinberg, E Levenson, and Zoe Sankey “How Doctors Without Borders Became a Political Actor in Gaza” (online ed, 29 December 2025)
³ RNZ cited over 20 different interviews and articles that it published in the roughly six months before the relevant broadcast which ‘contain the Israeli Government’s view of the conflict/s or provide a broader context for events in the Middle East’. Some of the interviews and articles RNZ cited included, for example: Nine to Noon “Middle East correspondent Sebastian Usher” RNZ (online ed, 16 February 2026): Nine to Noon “Israeli hostage describes his near 500-day ordeal: ‘Every morning I choose life’” RNZ (online ed, 11 November 2025); Jay Deshmukh “Israel army says begun ‘limited targeted ground operations’ against Hezbollah in south Lebanon” RNZ (online ed, 17 March 2026); Nine to Noon “Aid organisations fighting to stay in Gaza” RNZ (online ed, 10 March 2026); First Up “Israeli action still taking place in Gaza” RNZ (online ed, 5 February 2026); Matthew Doran and Sami Sockol “The sticking points as phase two of the Gaza ceasefire arrives” RNZ (online ed, 29 January 2026); “UN chief calls on Israel to reverse NGOs ban in Gaza” RNZ (online ed, 3 January 2026); and “Amnesty accuses Hamas of crimes against humanity” RNZ (online ed, 11 December 2026)
⁴ Broadcasting Act 1989, ss 6(1)(a) and 21(1)(a)
⁵ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁸ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁰ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹¹ New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 5
¹² See, for example: Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [11]; and Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [14]
¹³ Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁴ Médecins Sans Frontières “MSF responds to conflict in the Middle East” <msf.org.nz>; and Médecins Sans Frontières “How MSF is responding to the war in Gaza” <msf.org.nz>
¹⁵ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand; Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14. For a similar discussion, see Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2026-010 at [17]
¹⁶ See, for example: Watson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-070 at [60]; Wyeth & CK and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-059 at [40]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [12]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [15]; OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [12], Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [12]
¹⁷ See, for example: Matthew Doran, Sami Sockol and ABC staff in Gaza “Palestinians fear Gaza is being forgotten as Iran war drags on” RNZ (online ed, 16 April 2026); Samuel Granados, Abdi Latif Dahir and Sanjana Varghese “Israel Said It’s Applying the Gaza Model in Lebanon. This Is What the Devastation Looks Like.” The New York Times (online ed, 3 May 2026); Melanie Lidman, Kareem Chehayeb and Cara Anna “What to know as Israeli forces' historic Lebanon incursion complicates an Iran deal” Stuff (online ed, 1 June 2026); Hugo Bachega “Israel strikes Beirut for first time since Hezbollah ceasefire” BBC (online ed, 6 May 2026); Dana Karni and Tal Shalev “Netanyahu directs Israeli military to take over 70 percent of Gaza” RNZ (online ed, 29 May 2026); and Olivia Le Poidevin “UN says Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Hezbollah rockets into Israel may breach international law” Reuters (online ed, 25 April 2026)
¹⁸ Médecins Sans Frontières “Addressing frequently asked questions and allegations about MSF’s work in Gaza” <msf.org.nz>; See also: Médecins Sans Frontières “Shut up and provide aid: why weaponizing neutrality against humanitarian organizations must not silence us” <doctorswithoutborders.ca>
¹⁹ Lafraie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-114 at [16] and Craig and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-076 at [15]
²⁰ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
²¹ Guideline 6.1: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²² For a similar finding, see, for example: Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [19]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [14]; and Duke and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-068 at [14]
²³ For a similar finding, see Judge and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-042 at [32]
²⁴ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²⁵ Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [15]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [20]
²⁶ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16; See also, for example: Wyeth & CK and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-059 at [50]; and OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [16]
²⁷ Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [20]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [23]; OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [17]