BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a statement in First Up that Israel had ‘always been adamant’ there would never be a Palestinian state. The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision that the statement was materially inaccurate. However, it found the broadcaster complied with the accuracy standard requirement to correct material errors within a reasonable period, given its prompt broadcast of a correction. It also found the correction was not insufficient by virtue of having omitted additional context sought by the complainant. The balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Balance

The broadcast

[1]  The 19 November 2025 broadcast of First Up included an item about the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) support for the United States’s (US) resolution for Gaza, and a flight carrying Palestinians that landed in South Africa. The segment was led by Middle East correspondent for Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ), Alex Baird.

[2]  The First Up host introduced the segment and asked Baird, ‘What will this mean for Palestinians?’ Baird responded:

Yes, this is interesting, isn’t it? We’ve had for months just absolutely no movement on this and suddenly everything’s happening at once. So, as you said, the UN Security Council voting to unanimously endorse proposals – with two abstentions by Donald Trump – which includes a number of moving parts, and it’s hard to see which of these will actually come to fruition...

[3]  Relevant to this complaint, Baird said: (emphasis added)

Interestingly – and this often happens at the UN Security Council – you have very much last-minute changes. And one of those last-minute changes that had been made to the US resolution was references to a credible pathway for Palestinian statehood. Now, this is really important because Israel is adamant that there will never, ever be a Palestinian state. They have always been adamant about that. And because of that, many of the resolutions that mention that sort of thing are often vetoed, especially by the United States, which means it just goes nowhere…

But you saw the incorporation of that clause about Palestinian statehood, which means, finally, we have on-paper some sort of commitment – albeit not much at this point in time– to there being a Palestinian state. It’s really hard to see how that will happen though if Israel is adamant that there won’t be one.

The complaint

[4]  Murray Mills complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

Accuracy

• The statement that ‘Israel have always been adamant that there will never be a Palestinian state, is another of his weekly blood libels’.
• ‘From 1948 until recently … Israel has always supported a Palestinian state as part of its support for a “two-state solution”. It is the Palestinians who have rejected all 13 attempts since 1948 to establish a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution and instead have always been adamant that there should never ever have been an Israeli state and have done all they could since 1948 to destroy the sovereign state of Israel.’

Balance

• ‘This report and all of Baird’s regular Wednesday morning First Up reports are pro-Palestine and anti-Israel … He does not provide balance and there is no other counter-balancing voice on First Up, and instead we get verbal affirmation from the presenter of everything Baird says.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  RNZ partially upheld the complaint for the following reasons: (RNZ’s emphasis)

• ‘At about 1.45 minutes in the audio, Alex Baird says “Israel is adamant that there will never, ever, be a Palestinian state.” This comment is essentially true of the current Israeli Government and is evidenced by reference to comments made by Prime Minister Netanyahu and a Knesset resolution in 2024.’
• ‘But [Baird] then goes on to say “Israel has always been adamant that there will never be a Palestinian state.” This is not correct. There have been periods since 1948 when the State of Israel has supported that solution (for instance, during the Oslo Accords).’
• ‘RNZ considers this unqualified historical statement to be a material inaccuracy and therefore this aspect of your complaint regarding the Accuracy standard is UPHELD.’

[6]  In partially upholding the complaint, RNZ took action to redress the inaccuracy: (RNZ’s emphasis)

• It discussed the inaccuracy ‘with the programme’s host, the correspondent, and the executive producer’.
• ‘The correspondent offered an on-air correction at the earliest opportunity (in his [next] appearance on First Up).’
• ‘RNZ regrets that an inaccurate statement was broadcast on First Up. Having spoken to those involved in this broadcast and with the on-air correction, we now consider this matter to be concluded.’

[7]  The following correction was included at the start of Baird’s next appearance on First Up, on 26 November 2025:

Now, in our chat last week, it’s important always to make sure we get the details right. I said that Israel has always been adamant that there will never be a Palestinian state. Now, that’s not totally correct. To be more precise, that reflects the stance of the current Netanyahu Government and recent Knesset votes, which reflect the establishment of a Palestinian state. Now, interestingly, earlier governments hadn’t taken this stance, most notably Yitzhak Rabin, who had signed the Oslo Accords and whose prime minister was actually assassinated by a Jewish extremist who had opposed that peace process. That Government explicitly pursued a negotiated two-state outcome but now that is no longer the case, and at the same time Israel has continued settlement expansion and other policies in the occupied territories which, according to the UN and many governments, undermine the viability of a future Palestinian state. But that resolution that passed at the UN Security Council last Monday had mentioned and paved the way for the possibility of Palestinian statehood. So, we have to wait and see and see how that pans out.

Referral to the Authority

[8]  The complainant was not satisfied with the action taken by the broadcaster in response to his complaint and referred the matter to the Authority.

[9]  The complainant raised the following concerns:

• The clarification was inaccurate due to its omission to state:
  • ‘Israel has agreed to all 13 previous attempts since 1948 to establish a Palestinian state as part of a “two-state solution”.’
  • ‘[It] is the Palestinians who have rejected all 13 attempts since 1948 to form a Palestinian state as part of a “two-state solution”’.
• The First Up regular weekly Middle East correspondent is ‘invariably anti-Israel and pro-Palestine in his reports, and works for an employer that is equally anti-Israel and pro-Palestine, but he is never identified as such…’

[10]  In response to the complainant’s referral to the Authority, RNZ provided further submissions:

• ‘RNZ acknowledges that the statement as originally broadcast was an oversimplification. However… [it] was a live-to-air error by a reporter attempting to summarise a complex geopolitical stance in a fast-moving environment.’
• ‘Crucially, RNZ acted immediately… Mr Baird provided a clear correction in his very next appearance.’
• ‘…[The] purpose of a broadcast correction is to rectify the specific material error at hand, not to provide an exhaustive historical timeline.’
• RNZ ‘reiterate[s] that Mr Baird is a freelance contributor. His external professional associations do not disqualify him from reporting for RNZ, nor do they prove a “lack of integrity”.’

The standards

[11]  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.¹ The standard states:²

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.

[12]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ The standard states:⁴

• 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]  We consider the complaint is best addressed under the accuracy standard. Issues raised under the balance standard concern:

• Bias and the absence of a ‘counter-balancing voice’ across multiple First Up programmes: We are unable to address such issues under the balance standard. As noted at paragraph [12], the balance standard is focused on the availability of significant viewpoints on important issues. It does not address bias or require the impartial presentation of news.⁵ In addition, our jurisdiction is programme-specific: we are unable to consider complaints about programming over time.⁶
• The factual error, and absence of ‘balancing’ factual information, regarding Israel’s stance on a Palestinian state: Factual errors and omissions which may mislead the public, are accuracy issues rather than issues concerning the absence of significant viewpoints on issues.

[14]  For these reasons, our decision addresses the accuracy standard only.

Our analysis

[15]  We have listened to 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.⁷

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.

[18]  We first considered whether we agreed with RNZ’s finding, that there was a breach of the accuracy standard due to the statement Israel has ‘always been adamant’ there would never be a Palestinian state. The statement was clearly inaccurate, and we are satisfied reasonable efforts would have readily identified the inaccuracy, given the quantity of publicly available information on the point.⁸ Noting the significance attached in this broadcast to the resolution’s inclusion of provision for a ‘credible pathway for Palestinian statehood’, we are also satisfied the inaccuracy would have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole. Accordingly, we agree with RNZ’s finding there was a material breach of the accuracy standard.  

Has RNZ taken sufficient action to remedy the breach?

[19]  Where a material error of fact has occurred, the accuracy standard requires broadcasters to ‘correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice’.⁹

[20]  The broadcaster may correct a material error in such manner as is reasonable, taking into account:¹⁰

• 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]  Considering these factors, we are conscious the inaccuracy was material and likely to influence some listeners’ impressions regarding both (i) the prospects of a future ‘Palestinian state’, and (ii) who might be responsible for any future failure of that objective. On the other hand, considerable media reporting on the conflict and peace negotiations over time, means listeners are likely to have some understanding of the background and to gain clarification regarding the situation as the current peace initiative progresses.

[22]  The error in this case was promptly identified, and because the topic was the subject of regular updates in which a correction could appear, the error could reasonably be corrected on-air in a subsequent update. We therefore consider it was reasonable and appropriate for RNZ to broadcast an on-air correction–as it has done.

[23]  However, the complainant considers the correction insufficient given its omission to indicate that Israel agreed to all 13 previous attempts since 1948 to establish a Palestinian state as part of a ‘two-state solution’, and that such attempts had been rejected by Palestinian representatives.

[24]  In considering the sufficiency of any action taken by the broadcaster, we consider the severity of the conduct, the extent of the actual or potential harm that may have arisen and whether the action taken appropriately remedied the alleged harm.¹¹ The factors considered at paragraphs [20]–[22] are relevant in this analysis as well. We also note the broadcaster acknowledged the breach in the first instance, upholding the complaint under the accuracy standard and promptly issuing a correction.

[25]  Considering the above factors – in particular, the considerable past and likely future reporting on Israeli-Palestinian peace initiatives – we are not satisfied the severity of, or likely harm caused by, the breach required RNZ to include the additional information the complainant identifies:

• The correction addressed the error regarding Israel’s long-term stance.
• Further background on the reasons for the failure of previous solutions was not necessary to correct that error.
• While the correction did not signal Israel’s support for ‘all 13 attempts’ to establish a Palestinian state, it indicated earlier Israeli ‘governments’ (plural) had supported establishment of a Palestinian state, before focusing on the example of Yitzhak Rabin’s government.
• The broadcast did not address Palestine’s position on the current or previous peace plans, so it was unnecessary to address it in the correction.

[26]  In the circumstances, we do not uphold the complaint that RNZ’s actions in response to its breach of the accuracy standard were insufficient.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
18 March 2026  

 
Appendix

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

1  Mills’s original complaint – 23 November 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 27 November 2025

3  Mills’s referral to the Authority – 27 November 2025

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 19 December 2025

5  Mills’s further comments – 20 January 2026

6  RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 29 January 2026

¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ See Commentary, Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
⁶ Broadcasting Act 1989, ss 6(1)(a) and 21(1)(a)
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ See, for example: Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements September 13,1993, Israel–Palestine 33 ILM 1525 (signed 13 September 1993, entered into force 13 October 1993); Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (signed 28 September 1995) [Oslo II]; “The Question of Palestine” United Nations <un.org>; and Ken Stein “Oslo Accords (Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Agreements), Israel and PLO, 1993” (February 2023) Center for Israel Education <israeled.org>
⁹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Guideline 6.6
¹¹ Lerner and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-091 at [9]