BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has upheld an accuracy complaint from John Minto on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa about 1News’ reporting of violence that unfolded in Amsterdam surrounding a football match between the local team Ajax and Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv. The reporting comprised a pre-ad-break trailer reporting ‘antisemitic violence’, an introduction by the presenter which included a montage of ‘disturbing’ footage of violence described by Amsterdam’s mayor as ‘an explosion of antisemitism’, and a pre-recorded BBC item.

The broadcaster upheld one aspect of the complaint, relating to mischaracterised footage used in the trailer and introduction, which was originally reported as showing Israeli fans being attacked, but later corrected by Reuters and other outlets to indicate it showed Israeli fans chasing and attacking one Dutch man. The Authority considered the footage contributed to a materially misleading impression created by TVNZ’s framing of the events, with an emphasis on antisemitic violence against Israeli fans without acknowledging the role of the Maccabi fans in the violence – despite that being reported elsewhere prior to this 1News item.

A majority of the Authority did not consider TVNZ had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy; the background to these events was highly sensitive and more care should have been taken in framing the story so as not to overstate, or adopt without question, the ‘antisemitic’ angle. The minority considered it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on Reuters, the BBC and the views of Dutch officials who described the violence as ‘antisemitic’, in the context of a developing story overseas in which not all facts were clear at the time of this broadcast.

The Authority considered TVNZ should have issued a correction when it became aware of the error with the footage. It therefore found the action taken was insufficient but considered publication of this decision adequate remedy in the circumstances.

Upheld: Accuracy.

Not Upheld: Balance.

No Order

The broadcast

[1]  On Saturday 9 November 2024, 1News’s 6pm bulletin reported on ‘antisemitic violence’ in Amsterdam surrounding a football match between local team Ajax and Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv. The match took place at 9pm on Thursday 7 November 2024, Central European Time.

[2]  The story was first highlighted in a pre-ad-break trailer by the 1News presenter, accompanied by various short clips showing the violence. The presenter stated:

Just ahead, antisemitic violence rocks Amsterdam as Israeli football fans are chased down and beaten by pro-Palestinian protestors. Next, what authorities have revealed about the hit-and-run attacks.

[3]  The item itself comprised an introduction from the 1News presenter accompanied by a slightly longer montage of footage of the violence, followed by a pre-recorded BBC item:

1News presenter:      Police are on the streets of Amsterdam the day after pro-Palestinian protesters roamed the Dutch city attacking Israeli football fans after a game. This is some of the disturbing video to emerge on social media of people being pursued and beaten. One man crying out ‘I'm not Jewish’ [shown onscreen] as an attacker throws punches. Five victims were hospitalised and others suffered minor injuries. Amsterdam's mayor described it as an explosion of antisemitism. The BBC… reports.

BBC reporter:            International tensions reverberating on the streets of Amsterdam. The circumstances leading up to this are still unclear. There were incidents the day before: a Palestinian flag was torn down; a taxi attacked. Police said Maccabi supporters were to blame. And last night, a group of Maccabi fans making racist chants on an escalator. More than a thousand police officers were deployed in anticipation of trouble. But the violence happened after the game, away from the stadium as fans headed to their hotels. Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters were hunted down by men on scooters, according to the Mayor of Amsterdam.

Mayor:                        [Voiceover translation by reporter] …Individuals on scooters crisscrossed the city searching for supporters of Maccabi Tel Aviv. It was hit and run. Football fans…

BBC reporter:            She said it brought to mind historical persecution against Jewish people in Dutch and European history. It was put to the Mayor that the attackers had a Moroccan background. She wouldn't talk about ethnicity and said that it was for the investigation.

Maccabi fans:            They came really late. They came too late. They came when there were people who were already [hurt], injured.

BBC reporter:            The Dutch capital is no stranger to football-related violence, but this doesn't seem to have been hooliganism between rival supporters, but rather targeted attacks based not on sporting rivalry, but rather nationality.

…

The Dutch Prime Minister, Dick Schoof, is cutting short his time at a summit in Budapest to come home and deal with what he described as antisemitic attacks.

1News presenter:       US President Joe Biden says the attacks echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted. Three quarters of the Jewish people in the Netherlands were murdered in the Holocaust during World War Two.

The complaint

[4]  John Minto complained on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) that the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards. Key aspects of the complaint are summarised below under the standard which we consider most relevant to each issue raised:

Accuracy

Footage of attack incorrectly described

[5]  The footage of the attack was incorrectly described noting:

• Footage of an attack on a Dutch man by Maccabi supporters was described as an attack on an Israeli fan.
• ‘Guardian columnist Owen Jones brought to light the falseness of the narrative on November 8 [on YouTube the date is 9 Nov] – the day before TVNZ’s misleading item.’¹
• While TVNZ now acknowledges this was inaccurate, it has not corrected the story.
• If there are issues with posting the correction online, a corrected version should be broadcast.
• ‘It is stretching credibility … for TVNZ to routinely require viewers to be aware of other news sources “alternative viewpoints” to correct 1News mistakes, omissions and bias.’ Mainstream ‘alternative viewpoints’ were, in any event, also reporting it incorrectly.

Violence depicted as antisemitism

[6]  The violence was incorrectly depicted as antisemitism:

• The item ‘followed mainstream western news and political narrative’, promoting the violence as being driven by antisemitism through:
  • the presenter’s comments in the pre-ad-break trailer noting ‘Antisemitic violence rocks Amsterdam and Israeli football fans are chased down and beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters’
  • quotes included from the Mayor of Amsterdam and Dutch Prime Minister
  • invocation of and comparison to the Holocaust.
• This presentation of the story by TVNZ ‘converted the nature’ of events reported the previous day as being about ‘racist Israeli football hooliganism’ (citing an article by The Daily Mail).² 
• Reframing protests against Israeli action in Gaza as ‘antisemitism’ is a method used by Israel to discredit and silence protestors. 1News has ‘bought into this public relations strategy’.
• The antisemitism framing was not justified noting:
  • No evidence was produced that the attacks were motivated by antisemitism and PSNA is unaware of anyone being attacked just because they were, or were thought to be, Jewish (noting the BBC’s ‘I’m not Jewish’ footage is not evidence of the attacker’s motivations but of the victim’s perspective on what might stop the attack).
  • While acknowledging the many statements about antisemitism issued by Western leaders about the incident, this should not have pre-determined the approach to the item and ‘the automatic assumption’ motivations were antisemitic.
  • The Dutch prosecutor involved in the (subsequent) trial of men found guilty of attacks on Maccabi fans has been quoted as stating there was no evidence of terrorist or antisemitic intent; the ‘violence was influenced by the situation in Gaza, not by anti-Semitism’ (citing an RNZ article).³

Depiction of Maccabi and its fans

[7]  Maccabi and its fans were misleadingly depicted:

• The aspects chosen for inclusion with respect to the Maccabi fans’ behaviour, misleadingly suggested that ‘at worst Maccabi fans removed a Palestinian flag, damaged a taxi [and] uttered unspecified racist chants’. The broadcast:
  • omitted to mention Maccabi supporters engaged in anti-Arab or Islamophobic assaults (with many victims of the violence being Arabs)
  • described an attack on a taxi driver as an attack on a taxi
  • sanitised and omitted to translate, or comment on the disturbing nature of, the Maccabi chants (which included ‘Death to Arabs’ and ‘There are no schools in Gaza because all of the children have been killed/we have killed all the children’)
  • did not refer to Maccabi supporters disrupting the minute of silence for the victims of the Spanish flooding just before the game ‘because Spain’s support for Palestine is offensive to those supporters’.
• The broadcast omitted relevant context about Maccabi and its fans, such as:
  • the club’s and fans’ track record (including Palestinians not being included in the team and Maccabi fans’ severe beating of an Egyptian in Greece in March 2024)
  • Israeli soccer clubs’ notorious reputation for anti-Arab racism
  • the team having been accompanied to The Netherlands by members of the Israeli spy agency (the Mossad)
  • the fact that the majority of the Israeli soccer fans were serving, or recently had served, in the Israel Defense Forces and ‘many would have been active in perpetrating Israeli genocide in Gaza’.

Reliance on the BBC/Reuters was inappropriate

[8]  It was inappropriate for TVNZ to rely on the BBC and Reuters:

• TVNZ claims the BBC is ‘a respected news source’ as though it need not be cautious about BBC content, but this confidence is unfounded with respect to its Middle East reporting (pointing to another piece by Owen Jones).⁴
• ‘TVNZ should have been alerted by the now exposed-to-be-false Israeli narratives repeated by “reliable” news sources, of the Hamas led attacks on October 7 last year.’
• Reuters initially ‘obfuscated’ regarding the incorrectly described video footage (its first ‘correction’ only stating it could not verify who was responsible for the violence in the clip). It only admitted the video did depict an attack by Maccabi fans when pushed by the videographer.

Balance

[9]  With respect to balance, Minto argued:

• Despite there being no fatalities and limited injuries/damage, 1News chose to report the events in Amsterdam ‘when it has ignored so many instances of the vast death and destruction in Gaza’.
• None of the ‘alleged attackers of Israeli soccer fans, or anyone else’ were quoted to balance statements in the broadcast.
• Comments at the end about the number of Dutch Jewish casualties in the Holocaust were unbalanced, unnecessary and gratuitous. ‘TVNZ consistently argues that Palestinian history going back to the Nakba in 1948 is irrelevant, unnecessary or takes too much time to include in its bulletin stories.’ This suggests a ‘racially orientalist and discriminatory’ approach (ie only European, and not Asian, history is worthy of reporting).
• TVNZ did not subsequently report that the Amsterdam mayor later recanted some of her claims about the events.⁵
• Given much western media presented the story from the same perspective, TVNZ could not argue that viewers would have seen or read stories elsewhere which addressed any lack of balance.⁶ ‘1News’ coverage of the events was perhaps marginally more balanced than [other coverage]. But it does mean that TVNZ cannot take refuge, as it usually does, in stating [that] if its stories were factually wrong or unbalanced, then its viewers would have seen or read stories elsewhere which redressed the TVNZ errors or omissions. So prevalent is the antisemitism messaging created by Israel that the western media has embraced it as some sort of universal truth.’

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  TVNZ upheld one aspect of the accuracy complaint, accepting that a clip described as showing attacks on Maccabi supporters was the subject of a later Reuters correction (which TVNZ said was issued after this 1News broadcast) and ‘it appears that it shows Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters and Dutch youths clashing’. TVNZ did not accept viewers would be materially misled concerning the overall events in Amsterdam, or that it had failed to make reasonable efforts in sourcing the footage from Reuters, ‘a reputable, world recognised, news provider’. However, in upholding this aspect of the complaint it recognised that, given the wider issues of violence and conflict (Israel/Palestine, Gaza) as a background to the Amsterdam events, as well as the Holocaust and the anniversary of Kristellnacht on 9 November, ‘there is an extremely high standard expected in attribution of footage’.

[11]  TVNZ apologised to the complainant in its decision, saying, ‘We apologise to you for this inadvertent breach and would like to assure you that 1News considers this issue is of the highest concern and has contacted Reuters concerning this.’

[12]  Commenting on the obligation under the accuracy standard to correct ‘material errors’, TVNZ did not consider it necessary to issue a correction, on the basis:

a)  It is not possible to correct the description of the footage on any 1News page as the relevant story is not available online.

b)  A correction was not required for viewers’ proper understanding of the events overall.

c)  Information about the incorrect description of this footage by news providers worldwide was available in the public realm.

Accuracy

[13]  TVNZ did not uphold the remaining accuracy complaints for the reasons below.

[14]  Comments in pre-ad break trailer: It was correct and reasonable to state there was antisemitic violence when authorities in Amsterdam described events this way and it was reported that groups were organising ‘Jew hunts’ on social media. The full story which followed the ad break provided appropriate context to the events.

[15]  Attack on taxi driver: It was not incorrect to say a taxi was attacked and it was reported this way in other media.

[16]  TVNZ’s decision to report these events when it did not report more significant events in Gaza: 1News frequently reports on events in Gaza. The threshold for what constitutes a news story is not death or serious injury.

[17]  Omission of further detail regarding Maccabi supporters: TVNZ noted:

• It was not necessary to include further examples of poor behaviour to properly inform viewers.
• Further detail regarding the Maccabi club and fans was not relevant to the events being discussed.
• The story complained about was from the BBC, a respected news source. The broadcast reported:
  • the circumstances leading up to the violence were still unclear
  • there had been ‘incidents the day before, a Palestinian flag was torn down (this is shown), a taxi attacked. Police said Maccabi supporters were to blame.’
  • Maccabi fans had made ‘racist chants’ on an escalator
  • the violence ‘doesn’t seem to be hooliganism between rival supporters, but rather targeted attacks based not on sporting rivalry but rather, nationality’.
• No claim was made that the story contained a definitive timeline of all events and, at the time, some of the circumstances and events shown on video were unverified.

[18]  General: The information provided was consistent with the description of events by Amsterdam’s Mayor in a Council Letter dated 11 November, a few days after the event (which in turn was supported by other news reports):

We have seen footage of Israeli football supporters being pursued, attacked, and brutalized; screenshots of antisemitic messages calling for a ‘hunt on Jews’, and videos filled with hate-fuelled, racist chants against ‘Arabs’. From the tearing down and burning of a Palestinian flag to targeted assaults on Jewish and Israeli supporters, numerous antisemitic expressions were made. The local authorities (consisting of the mayor, police chief, and chief public prosecutor) explicitly emphasize that violence by one party is never an excuse for violence by another.

Balance

[19]  TVNZ did not uphold the balance complaint for the following reasons:

• While the wider conflict between Israel and Palestine is a controversial issue of public importance to which the balance standard may apply, the violence in Amsterdam is not such an issue.
• The report was a straightforward news story describing events.
• In any case, the issues in question have been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints that existed.⁷
• Comment from ‘alleged attackers of the Israeli soccer fans’ was not required to achieve balance. The racist behaviour of some Maccabi fans was depicted.
• The violence in Amsterdam occurred on the eve of the anniversary of Kristallnacht so it was not ‘unbalanced, unnecessary and gratuitous’ to refer to the Holocaust.

The standards

[20]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁸ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁹ It states:

• 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.

[21]  The purpose of the balance standard¹⁰ is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.¹¹ It states:

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

[22]  We have watched the broadcast – the pre-ad-break trailer for the item and the main item – and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[23]   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.¹²

Accuracy

[24]  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.¹³ The accuracy standard has two limbs:

[25]  The first limb of the standard 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. The first step is to consider whether the broadcast was materially inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure the broadcast was accurate and did not mislead. The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the broadcast as a whole are not considered material.¹⁴

[26]  The second limb – the ‘corrections limb’ – of the accuracy standard, 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’. Unlike the first limb, this obligation is not discharged by the broadcaster having made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. It places an additional obligation on broadcasters to put right for the audience, something they have got wrong. This obligation arises when the broadcaster becomes aware of a material error.

Was the broadcast materially misleading?

[27]  The first question for the Authority is whether the item was materially misleading. To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.¹⁵

[28]  We acknowledge the broadcaster’s decision accepting the piece of footage sourced from Reuters was misrepresented as showing antisemitic violence against Israeli football fans (when according to the content creator, it showed Israeli fans pursuing and beating one Dutch man). We also acknowledge and agree with TVNZ’s view that, due to heightened sensitivities in relation to the background to these events – primarily, the conflict in Gaza – there is ‘an extremely high standard expected in attribution of footage’. This also applies more broadly in our view, to ensuring due care and caution are exercised in ensuring the accuracy of all reporting on the conflict and related topics.

[29]  To that end, we were concerned not only about the mischaracterisation of the footage – which we accept TVNZ did not know about, and noting it appears it had not yet been corrected by Reuters, at the time of this broadcast – but also with TVNZ’s framing of the violence more broadly, of which the incorrect footage was in our view a contributing factor.

[30]  The trailer for the item and the introduction to the BBC item were aspects over which TVNZ had full editorial control. Both strongly emphasised the ‘antisemitic’ nature of the violence without signalling the existence of any other factors at play, or any role of the Maccabi fans in the violence. In the trailer, the ‘antisemitic’ framing was adopted by TVNZ without attributing the source of that view. That in turn was bolstered by the montage of violent footage, described by TVNZ as ‘disturbing’ and presented as being wholly one-sided and perpetrated by ‘pro-Palestinian protestors’ against Israeli fans. The images were powerful and made a strong impact in framing the events for the audience.

[31]  It is true the Amsterdam mayor, the Dutch Prime Minister, and other political leaders, had condemned the violence against the Israeli fans as being ‘antisemitic’. However, as the complainant points out, there had been widespread coverage of the Amsterdam events by the time of this 1News broadcast at 6pm on 9 November 2024 (NZ time), including by RNZ who ran numerous bulletins from 8pm, 8 November 2024 until the time of this broadcast on Saturday evening which recognised the role of the Israeli fans in the unrest and potentially provoking the violence. We were not persuaded TVNZ exercised sufficient care in preparing the strong, one-sided ‘antisemitic’ angle of its trailer and introduction to the story, having regard to other coverage. While finely balanced, we therefore considered this framing was materially misleading, as it would have coloured viewers’ perception of the overall events – particularly combined with the strongly impactful footage, and especially in the trailer which did not attribute the ‘antisemitic’ view to officials.

Did the broadcaster make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy?

[32]  With respect to the Reuters footage, we all agreed that at the time of this item, TVNZ could not reasonably be expected to know about the incorrect mischaracterisation of the footage sourced from Reuters. It appears Reuters’ initial correction was issued 9 November, with an update on 11 November – equating to 10 and 12 November 2024 NZ time. The earliest instance we have found of an overseas outlet correcting its use of the footage was The Guardian at 6.22pm on the evening of 9 November – equating to 7.22am, 10 November 2024 here in New Zealand, the morning after the broadcast.¹⁶ We do not think it unreasonable that TVNZ did not pick up or rely on the YouTube video on which the complainant relies as discrediting the footage. It is not clear in any case that video was published before the 1News broadcast; TVNZ maintains it was not (as it similarly is dated 9 November, ie 10 November in New Zealand). Nor do we think there was any obvious reason for TVNZ to question that specific piece of footage or track down the content creator’s own account of events, having sourced that footage from Reuters. New Zealand outlets commonly rely on the BBC and Reuters in the case of developing overseas stories, when they do not have journalists available on the ground reporting first-hand.

[33]  We held differing views on whether TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure its framing of the item more broadly, with a strong emphasis on ‘antisemitic violence’ against Israeli fans, was accurate and did not mislead.

[34]  A majority of the Authority (Susie Staley, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i and Aroha Beck) found TVNZ had not made reasonable efforts in preparing the trailer and framing the item, to ensure it was not materially inaccurate or misleading. We acknowledge this was a developing story which only broke in New Zealand the previous evening, Friday 8 November 2024, some details of which were not yet verified. However, by the time of this item at 6pm on Saturday 9 November 2024, it was apparent, even from parts of the BBC item in the broadcast, there was likely to be more to it than ‘antisemitic violence’.

[35]  Given the sensitivities and highly emotionally-charged background to the Amsterdam events, more care should have been taken in the way 1News framed the events for its New Zealand audience to signal that the circumstances leading up to the violence were not yet clear, but it was evident both sides had played a role in the unrest and subsequent violence. The trailer and introduction painted a picture that was wholly one-sided, bolstered by the ‘disturbing’ video of the violence. There was no suggestion the violence might have gone both ways, despite by this time it being known (and reported by RNZ and the BBC among many others), for example, that Maccabi fans had set upon a taxi or taxis. Although their actions were briefly mentioned in the BBC piece that followed, we sympathise with the complainant’s view that was ‘sanitised’ to an extent by, for example, not translating any of the Maccabi fans’ ‘racist chants’ or chants said to have glorified Israel’s actions in Gaza, which we think would have altered viewers’ perception of how significant the Maccabi fans’ role was in provoking the violence. We do not think the BBC’s brief mentions were enough to counter the introductory voiceovers or the strong visual impact of the violent footage, presented as being perpetrated by one side only, with antisemitic intentions. We consider it was reasonable to expect TVNZ to also reflect the role of the Maccabi fans when framing the story for viewers.

[36]  This was the only item broadcast by 1News when the story broke, until a second 1News item on 15 November 2024. The 15 November broadcast was also the subject of two complaints upheld by TVNZ as breaching the accuracy standard, through failing to acknowledge the role of the Maccabi fans. We acknowledge the complainant’s view that the ‘antisemitism’ narrative has been adopted and emphasised by TVNZ without question: ‘While acknowledging the many statements about antisemitism issued by Western leaders about the incident, this should not have pre-determined the approach to the item and ‘the automatic assumption’ motivations were antisemitic’ [our emphasis].

[37]  Accordingly, we the majority find the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy in its framing of the violence.

[38]  The minority (John Gillespie) considers it was reasonable in the circumstances for TVNZ to rely on the BBC, Reuters, and the views of Dutch officials who described the violence as ‘antisemitic’, in the context of a developing story coming out of Europe. With the benefit of hindsight and further information having come to light, outlets may have been less likely to adopt the ‘antisemitism’ narrative. But that does not mean TVNZ acted unreasonably in its framing of the story at the time, based on the information available. It was by no means the only outlet that described the violence as ‘antisemitic’ in reporting the events.¹⁷ The language TVNZ used may have been slightly stronger and unqualified, particularly in the trailer, compared with other broadcasters. RNZ, for example, reported ‘apparent antisemitic attacks’. However, the BBC item that followed adequately contextualised that language in my view and mitigated the overall likelihood of viewers being misled, by stating ‘the circumstances leading up to this are still unclear’ and referencing examples of the Maccabi fans’ behaviour. Therefore, overall, I would conclude TVNZ made reasonable efforts in the circumstances, and the potential harm under the accuracy standard did not reach the threshold for restricting TVNZ’s freedom of expression.

Conclusion on reasonable efforts (majority)

[39]  For the reasons above, we the majority uphold the complaint the broadcaster has not used reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. In this case, we are not satisfied the right to freedom of expression should outweigh the potential harm caused by misleading the New Zealand public on a topic of such sensitivity and public interest.

Should TVNZ have issued a correction once it became aware of the footage issue?

[40]  We have considered the corrections limb of the standard in relation to the error made in characterisation of the footage, being an error that in our view the broadcaster ought to have been alerted to at an early stage, and one which we consider constituted a material error of fact given its contribution to materially misleading the audience as outlined above.

[41]  On the matter of issuing corrections, the accuracy standard states:

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.

[42]  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) taking into account:

• 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).

[43]  As far as when the broadcaster was ‘put on notice’ of the error with the footage, we have some concern about the delay between the Reuters corrections (9 and 11 November), PSNA’s complaint (13 November), and TVNZ becoming aware of Reuters’ corrections approximately 16 days after the broadcast, and 12 days after the complaint, on 25 November. Further, in the intervening period, TVNZ used the footage again in an item on 1News on 15 November 2024.

[44]  TVNZ had several opportunities to discover the error, between the Reuters corrections, other outlets correcting their own reporting, or after receiving Minto’s complaint on 13 November.

[45]  However, we acknowledge TVNZ receives a large volume of complaints, PSNA’s complaint was lengthy, and the screenshots Minto provided of the relevant footage and the content creator’s comment on it, did not show up in the online complaint form – so we accept it may be unreasonable to expect the broadcaster’s complaints team to have rapidly identified the error and investigated it.

[46]  TVNZ has recognised, in its decision on the complaint, the ‘extremely high standard expected in the attribution of footage’ given the background to these events and considered this sufficient basis to uphold this aspect of the complaint. It assured the complainant this was of ‘the highest concern’, contacted Reuters about it, and has since put in place improved processes around notification of Reuters corrections.

[47]  Given these factors and acknowledgements by TVNZ, we consider the broadcaster should have issued a correction, even with the time that had passed since the 9 November broadcast. There are a number of ways this might have been done, for example in an additional broadcast update or follow-up item as further developments came to light (for example, closer to Christmas, when the outcome of prosecutions against those charged for their part in the violence was reported), or perhaps more easily by annotating one of the relevant online articles reporting the Amsterdam events (sourced from Associated Press), the last of which was available on 1news.co.nz until 15 December 2024.

[48]  Accordingly, we also find a breach of the second limb of the accuracy standard, relating to corrections.

Was the action taken by TVNZ sufficient to remedy the breach?

[49]  Finally, we considered whether the action taken by the broadcaster appropriately remedied the harm under the accuracy standard. In making this assessment, we consider the severity of the conduct, the extent of actual or potential harm that may have arisen and whether the action taken appropriately remedied the alleged harm.¹⁸

[50]  We acknowledge that TVNZ has: upheld one aspect of the accuracy complaint; apologised to the complainant and assured Minto the issue was of ‘the highest concern’; contacted Reuters about it; and improved its processes for notification of Reuters corrections. However, as we have outlined above, the error has not been publicly notified or corrected by TVNZ to date, notwithstanding other outlets have done so.

[51]  For the reasons we have already expressed, we consider TVNZ’s recognition of the importance of correctly characterising footage particularly on subjects of high public interest and heightened sensitivity, supports the need for the error to be acknowledged publicly. On this basis we find the action taken was insufficient.

Balance

[52]  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’.¹⁹

[53]  We recently declined to uphold another balance complaint regarding the same 1News broadcast on 9 November 2024, for the following reasons:²⁰

• The Amsterdam events and resulting violence appeared to be ‘controversial’ for the purposes of the balance standard, given alleged racial tensions and prior provocations by the Israeli fans (as well as being linked by some commentators more broadly to Gaza and the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict).
• To the extent this item could be viewed as ‘discussing’ the causes or instigators of the violence, the item met the requirements of the balance standard and presented an adequate range of balancing information and viewpoints.
• The ‘racist behaviour’ of the Israeli fans (which the complainant considered was omitted from the reporting) was conveyed in the pre-recorded BBC item, which stated (our emphasis):
  • International tensions reverberating on the streets of Amsterdam. The circumstances leading up to this are still unclear. There were incidents the day before: a Palestinian flag was torn down; a taxi attacked. Police said Maccabi supporters were to blame. And last night, a group of Maccabi fans making racist chants on an escalator.
• The references in this item to the violence being ‘an explosion of antisemitism’ and ‘described as antisemitic attacks’ were attributed to the mayor of Amsterdam and the Dutch Prime Minister (and similarly reported by other outlets here and internationally).²¹
• Further, the standard explicitly allows for balance to be achieved over time ‘in other broadcasts within the period of current interest’. Therefore, the broadcaster is not required to include a range of perspectives, or all angles, within every item covering a particular story.
• The standard also explicitly recognises the broadcaster is not required to provide balancing viewpoints where ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’. The Amsterdam events were widely covered by other media outlets, reducing the likelihood anyone would be left uninformed overall or unable to form their own views on what had happened.
• TVNZ provided transcripts of other 1News coverage online that reported further details of the violence which the complainant wished to be included in this particular item.

[54]  We consider the same reasoning applies to this complaint – despite the majority view above that TVNZ did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The balance and accuracy standards have different objectives and applications: the balance standard is concerned with the omission of significant viewpoints on controversial issues and, importantly, balance can be achieved over time; it takes into account the period of current interest and viewpoints presented across all coverage of a topic. A common-sense approach is taken in recognition of the wealth of coverage, information and news outlets readily available to the audience.

[55]  In contrast, accuracy is concerned with material points of fact and, in the case of a broadcast alleged to be misleading by omission, the omission of factual information or background rather than viewpoints. Accuracy is not achieved over time, although a series of reporting by the broadcaster covering different aspects, or a correction made later after reporting was initially incorrect or misleading, may mitigate the risk of the audience being misled overall.²²

[56]  For completeness, we respond briefly to the additional points Minto raised which were not addressed under the balance standard in the Barclay decision:

• 1News chose to report the events in Amsterdam ‘when it has ignored so many instances of the vast death and destruction in Gaza’. This is a matter of editorial discretion, rather than omission of a significant viewpoint on a controversial issue. News outlets worldwide reported what happened in Amsterdam. TVNZ frequently reports developments on the situation in Gaza.
• None of the ‘alleged attackers of Israeli soccer fans, or anyone else’ were quoted to balance statements in the broadcast. The balance standard does not require that ‘attackers of Israeli soccer fans’ be interviewed or quoted or dictate who should present a particular viewpoint – only that the broadcaster give a fair voice to significant alternative perspectives. As in Barclay, we consider the BBC item adequately highlighted Maccabi fans’ provocations and ‘racist chants’ to the extent the causes/instigators of the Amsterdam violence could be considered a ‘controversial issue’, as well as noting ‘the circumstances leading up to this are still unclear’.
• Comments at the end about the number of Dutch Jewish casualties in the Holocaust were unbalanced, unnecessary and gratuitous; and it suggests a ‘racially orientalist and discriminatory’ approach (ie, only European history is worthy of reporting). The balance standard is not targeted at information that may be considered by some to be ‘unnecessary and gratuitous’. It appeared the newsreader’s closing statement regarding those killed in the Holocaust in the Netherlands was intended to offer contextual background for the statement immediately prior, ‘US President Joe Biden says the attacks echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted’. We acknowledge Minto’s concern that only certain histories appear worthy of being given airtime, and that it contributed to the ‘antisemitic’ framing overall (which we have addressed above under accuracy). We nevertheless do not consider it rendered the item as a whole ‘unbalanced’, for the reasons outlined above (drawing from our findings in Barclay).
• TVNZ did not subsequently report that the Amsterdam mayor later recanted some of her claims about the events. In its submissions, TVNZ noted the mayor recanted initial references to the violence being reminiscent of a ‘pogrom’, which was not reported in this item. In any event, the balance standard as it applies to this 1News item on 9 November 2024 concerns presentation of significant viewpoints in the discussion of issues in that item; we cannot apply it to later editorial decisions by the broadcaster to cover or not cover other developments in the story.
• Given many western media presented the story from the same perspective, TVNZ cannot argue that viewers would have seen or read stories elsewhere which addressed any lack of balance. We consider PSNA’s concerns about the framing of this broadcast have been appropriately acknowledged and addressed under the accuracy standard above.

For the above reasons: A majority of the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of an item on 1News on 9 November 2024 breached Standard 6 (Accuracy) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand; and the Authority upholds the complaint that the action taken by Television New Zealand Ltd, having upheld one aspect of the complaint under that standard, was insufficient.

[57]  Having upheld aspects of the complaint, we may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

[58]  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. 

[59]  Drawing from our findings above, and given we were not unanimous in our views, we do not consider any order is warranted in this case.

[60]  We consider publication of our decision is sufficient to publicly notify and correct the breaches under the accuracy standard.  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  Minto’s original complaint (on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa), both in online format submitted to TVNZ (with screenshots not visible) and in Word format provided to the Authority (including screenshots) – 
13 November 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint – 11 December 2024

3  Minto’s referral to the Authority – 27 December 2024

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 31 January 2024

5  Minto’s further comments – 20 February 2025

6  TVNZ’s response – 20 February 2025

7  TVNZ’s clarifications re Reuters correction – 20-21 February 2025

¹ Owen Jones “Racist Israeli Football Thugs RAMPAGE in Amsterdam – And Media LIES” <youtube.com>
² Luke Power “Israeli football hooligans tear down Palestine flags in Amsterdam as taxi drivers ‘fight back’ in night of chaos ahead of Maccabi Tel Aviv’s visit to Ajax” The Daily Mail (online ed, 7 November 2024)
³ “Five convicted over Amsterdam violence against Israelis” RNZ (online ed, 25 December 2024)
⁴ Owen Jones (20 December 2024) “The BBC's Civil War Over Gaza” <dropsitenews.com>
⁵ TOI staff “Amsterdam mayor regrets use of word pogrom to describe attacks on Israelis” The Times of Israel, (online ed, 18 November 2024) 
⁶ The complainant referred to various examples of other western media reports (some of which are no longer available online).  Available examples include: Kim Hjelmgaard and Cybele Mayes-Osterman “Israeli soccer fans attacked in incident linked to antisemitism in Amsterdam” USA Today (online ed, 9 November 2024); AFP and TOI staff ”'History is repeating itself': Amsterdam in shock after wave of antisemitic violence” The Times of Israel (online ed, 10 November 2024); Paul Kirby “Amsterdam: We must not turn blind eye to antisemitism, says Dutch king after attacks on Israeli football fans” BBC (online ed, 9 November 2024)
⁷ 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:“Amsterdam police detain protestors after banned demonstration” 1News (online ed, 15 November 2024) <1news.co.nz> “France boosts security for Israel match after Amsterdam violence” 1News (online ed, 15 November 2024) <1news.co.nz> “Israeli football fans attacked in Amsterdam condemned as antisemitic” 1News (online ed, 9 November 2024) <1news.co.nz>
⁸ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
⁹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁰ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹² Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹³ 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]
¹⁴ Guideline 6.2
¹⁵ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
¹⁶ “Amsterdam: arrests made after attacks on Israeli football fans – video report” The Guardian (online ed, 9 November 2024)
¹⁷ For example, Elena Salvoni and AFP “Israeli football fans were attacked by marauding 'anti-Jewish scooter gangs' in Amsterdam says mayor - as riots leave 10 injured and 800 police deployed” The Daily Mail (online ed, Australia, 8 November 2024 and updated 9 November 2024); Enas Alashray and Bart H Meijer “Israel to collect soccer fans from Amsterdam after apparent antisemitic attacks” RNZ (online ed, 8 November 2024)
¹⁸ See, for example, Muir & Knight and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-008 at [23] and Lerner and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2021-091 at [9]
¹⁹ Guideline 5.1
²⁰ Barclay and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-102 at [9]-[13]
²¹ For example, Reuters, “Israel to collect soccer fans from Amsterdam after apparent antisemitic attacks” RNZ (online ed, 8 November 2024); Sky News Reporters “Emergency measures in Amsterdam over attacks on Israeli football fans after Palestinian flags torn down” Sky News (online ed, 8 November 2024)
²² See, for example, Andrews and Murray and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-153 concerning a number of bulletins on RNZ’s Morning Report. The Authority did not uphold two accuracy complaints, finding although the morning bulletins were misleading and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of those reports, a later news bulletin during Midday Report was sufficient to clarify and correct the misleading impression created earlier.