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 under the balance and accuracy standards about a 1News report on the start of a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, and the first hostage/prisoner exchange as part of the deal. The complaint included claims the broadcast: failed to identify the West Bank as occupied; inaccurately cited how many were killed at the Nova festival and the identity of those attending the festival; inaccurately described the origin of the cars in the ‘car wall’; used ‘gratuitous adjectival framing to discredit Palestinian supporters’; and was overall unbalanced. Noting the challenges of verifying certain facts presented in the broadcast, the Authority did not uphold the complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy, or the relevant points were not materially inaccurate or misleading. The balance standard was not breached because it does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented without bias; significant alternative perspectives were included in the broadcast; and there was widespread reporting of significant perspectives on the hostage exchange and the Israel-Hamas conflict generally.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  An item during the 20 January 2025 broadcast of 1News covered a hostage/prisoner exchange between Hamas and Israel, resulting from a ceasefire deal. The broadcast was as follows:

1News presenter:      Dramatic and emotional scenes, but not before more bloodshed in Gaza. After an almost three-hour delay with airstrikes continuing overnight, the first hostages and prisoners have been freed as the ceasefire deal finally begins. Held by Hamas for 15 months, three women released to the Red Cross before being handed to the Israeli military, followed by long-awaited reunions with relieved loved ones. They're the first of 33 Israeli hostages who will be released over the first phase of the ceasefire deal. In return, Israel will free almost 2,000 Palestinians from its jails. And keeping to the agreement, just hours later, around 90 Palestinian prisoners were freed. This as hundreds of humanitarian aid trucks started entering Gaza to help displaced Palestinian families. [1News reporter] reports.

1News reporter:        Busloads of Palestinian detainees welcomed home. Huge crowds cheering, waving flags, and setting off fireworks across the West Bank. These 90 prisoners, the first to be released from an Israeli jail as the ceasefire starts. 

Freed prisoner:         Our freedom will not be complete until the reconstruction of Gaza and life returns to it.

Reporter:                   Seven hours earlier, Hamas handed over its first three hostages in Gaza, a dramatic exchange that was over in seconds. With a show of force from Hamas militants as the women were led to a Red Cross van, now reunited with their families for the first time since the conflict began. The hostage handover was televised to the streets of Tel Aviv. Hundreds embracing and cheering. 

Israeli civilian #1:      It's a beautiful day. After so long, we got a beautiful day.

Israeli civilian #2:      Once this door opens, it must not close.

Reporter:                   Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu getting a blow-by-blow account from hostage coordinators over the phone.

Netanyahu:                This is a very moving day. These are the first hostages in this phase that we are returning home. I would like you to tell them, an entire nation embraces you. Welcome home.

Reporter:                    But the ceasefire got off to a shaky start, coming into force almost three hours late, Israel continuing its attacks as it waited for the names of the women being released. Gaza's Civil Defence, run by Hamas, says 19 Palestinians were killed by Israel during the delay.

Hamas spokesman:  We are keen on the success of all the terms and stages of the agreement, to spare the blood of our people and to achieve their goals and hopes, and we call on all mediators to compel the Israeli enemy to commit. 

Reporter:                    At first light, thousands of displaced Palestinians in Gaza began trying to walk home, though many have no home to go back to. This family returning to find their house in ruin.

Palestinian civilian:   Our home is gone. Our situation is destroyed. Where can we go? Ten children. Where should I go with them in the tents? Where should I go with them on the streets?

Reporter:                    Much needed aid is also flowing into Gaza through Egypt's Rafa crossing, carrying food and fuel. The ceasefire deal outlining that 600 truckloads be allowed in every day of the initial six-week phase.

Truck driver:              We wish that every minute that passes we could go to these people. Those people cannot find food, drink, medicine, or shelter. All their houses have been hit by strikes. They have nothing left. 

Reporter:                    All going well. More hostages will be released in a week's time… 

1News presenter:      But apprehension remains that the ceasefire won't last, especially at the location where Hamas fighters carried out a brutal attack on partygoers as part of their initial surprise assault. The BBC's [journalist] reports. 

BBC reporter:            Just over the border in Israel is the site of the Nova music festival, where Hamas killed more than 380 people on the 7th of October [2023] and took 40 hostage. This weekend, with the ceasefire coming, many Israelis made their own pilgrimages, moving quietly around the photos and memorials to those who were killed.

A short distance away is another memorial: the festival-goers' cars, hundreds of them destroyed in the attack. Israelis here said they'd wanted a deal in which all the hostages were swapped for Palestinian prisoners at the same time. That's because they believed the war is going to resume. They said it was unavoidable while Hamas still has armed men in Gaza.

Israeli civilian #2:      They want to kill us. They want to finish us. So, what is the good questions? [Pointing at the car memorial] Look. Look! This is the answer. This is what they want. Can we live like this? No.

Reporter:                    A ceasefire, by definition, is a compromise between enemies. But since the October attacks, Prime Minister Netanyahu has talked repeatedly about getting all the hostages back through ‘total victory’: the complete annihilation of Hamas as a political and military force. But right now, that is not what the Israeli people are being offered.

The next swap of prisoners and hostages is due on Saturday. For Palestinian and Israeli families, this is a night for hope and relief - and some trepidation about what might lie ahead.

1News presenter:      The first of three ceasefire phases will last 42 days. The second phase, still to be worked out, is conditional on whether the first stage is upheld and includes Israel's complete withdrawal from Gaza, while stage three would include a Gaza reconstruction plan.

The complaint

[2]  John Minto complained, on behalf of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. Some of the issues raised by Minto are capable of being addressed under both of these standards. However, we have summarised the key submissions below under the standards we consider most relevant to each point.

Accuracy

Failure to identify the West Bank as occupied territory

[3]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) ‘failed to identify the Palestinian Occupied Territory as such’. Specifically, ‘[t]he location of the release of Palestinian hostages should have been described as in “the Occupied West Bank” – not “the West Bank”.’

a)  This identification is particularly important given 1News did not ‘background the fundamental grievance of the Palestinians’: ‘the loss of their land to occupation and the permanent expulsion of most of them from that land since 1948’.

b)  TVNZ’s style guide indicates that clarifying the West Bank’s occupied status is required as an in-house standard.

c)  ‘TVNZ defends the omission by claiming that it didn’t need to use the accurate and full description of the West Bank, since it did state that the released Palestinian detainees were returning to an area which is “their rightful place (home)”. This is not true in a great number of cases. More than a third of the Palestinians resident in the West Bank are 1948 refugees. Their rightful place is not in the West Bank, it is elsewhere in Palestine.’

Fatalities at the Supernova festival

[4]  Number of fatalities: TVNZ authoritatively cited there were 380 fatalities at the festival, but a Rolling Stone article¹ estimated 260 people were killed. The item also did not state how many Palestinians had been killed since 7 October 2023.

[5]  Festival attendees: The Supernova festival ‘was designed to attract the age group where Israelis are required to serve in the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces]. 1News has never chosen to mention, as far as we are aware, that nearly all Israelis at the event were currently serving in the IDF or were in the IDF reserve units. As such, they were neither civilians, nor just “party goers”’.

a)  ‘The IDF is carrying out an illegal belligerent occupation of Palestinian Territory and thus those who serve in the IDF are culpable military – even if they attend music festivals.’

b)  ‘It is disturbing that TVNZ… uses the “Eichmann defence” that, as conscripts, the IDF soldiers at the Nova Festival were innocents, and not in uniform, and when they were in uniform, they were simply conscripts doing their job – even if it was unstated and unadmitted by TVNZ that their job has been to carry out genocide and ethnic cleansing.’

c)  TVNZ extensively cites a United Nations Human Rights Council report² in its decision to evidence crimes committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023. ‘PSNA is on the record as condemning all war crimes on October 7th and every day since then. Our issue is that TVNZ has extensively, selectively, wrongly, and emotively reported on October 7th…’.

Hannibal Directive

[6]  ‘The “car wall” exhibited by [the BBC reporter] is… constructed substantially of vehicles destroyed by Israeli forces in the exercise of the Hannibal Directive.’³

a)  Reports indicate that evidence of deliberate Israeli killings of Israeli civilians ‘at the kibbutzim and other settlements surrounding Gaza is clear and undeniable. Video footage and press reports of the Al-Aqsa Flood offensive show that many buildings in the settlements were completely destroyed, in a manner consistent with heavy weaponry only known by military experts to be in the possession of the Israeli military, and not in the possession of Palestinian fighters’.⁴

b)  The Hannibal Directive is ‘another important story which we have no recall of 1News ever reporting on’. ‘TVNZ still appears to doubt the Israeli government employed the Hannibal Directive on October 7 and suggests that even if it [was] used then the casualties of it were insignificant enough to diminish the tally of Israelis killed by Hamas to any extent.’

Balance

‘Selective use of emotive words’

[7]  The BBC report was ‘a gratuitous postscript’ included ‘to engender sympathy for personal Israeli concerns in a manner which [TVNZ] never offers to the Palestinians’. Likewise, ‘critical adjectives used by 1News were reserved for Palestinian attacks’.

a)  Examples of the broadcast’s ‘gratuitous adjectival framing’ are as follows:

i)  The Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023 was described as ‘brutal’ – but neither ‘”brutal”, nor any other similar wording, was used in the item by 1News about the Israeli attacks over 15 months on Gaza which directly resulted in at least 50,000 dead.’

ii)  By reporting the ‘apprehension of the ceasefire breaking down as occurring “especially” at the site of the Nova music festival’, the item ‘elevates the apprehension of Israelis at this site, which is based on an attack which lasted one day, over apprehensions of Palestinians in Gaza who have endured attacks lasting some 470 days’.

iii)  Israelis at the site of the Supernova festival were described as ‘moving quietly’ around the memorial, exemplifying ‘a reverential contrast’ in the way TVNZ describes Israelis compared to Palestinians.

b)  ‘A single word, usually an adjective, can be powerful when used by a news agency to frame a particular story.’

c)  In their response to the original complaint, TVNZ offered examples of how, in other news reports, 1News used ‘similar critical descriptions to describe Israeli actions’ – yet the five examples ‘exhibit the regular bias in 1News when reporting on Palestine’.

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Its response to the complaint is summarised below.

Accuracy

‘Selective use of emotive words’

[9]  The BBC report was not ‘a gratuitous postscript’ included ‘to engender sympathy for personal Israeli concerns in a manner which [TVNZ] never offers to the Palestinians’. It was ‘a matter-of-fact discussion of the mechanics of the ceasefire’, where the BBC reporter spoke of ‘the political situation for Prime Minister Netanyahu given his promises to the Israeli people and that these promises will not be fulfilled in the ceasefire’.

a)  Description of the 7 October Hamas-led attack as ‘brutal’: ‘There can be no debate that the Hamas-led 7 October attack was brutal, and it is not pejorative to describe it as such’. 

i)  The broadcast highlighted attacks on Palestinians and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including footage of the ‘absolute devastation of Gaza’, an IDF missile attack in Gaza, and stating that ’19 Palestinians were killed by Israel during the [ceasefire] delay’. 

ii)  The complainant’s characterisation ‘of the language used in 1News reporting is inaccurate’. TVNZ provided examples of other 1News reports that used ‘similar critical descriptions to describe Israeli actions’.⁵

b)  Israelis ‘moving quietly’ around the Supernova memorial: Use of this phrase is not inaccurate. It is ‘standard or commonplace to note that visitors are quiet or [sombre] in such a setting’.

Failure to identify the West Bank as occupied territory

[10]  While recognising the importance of routinely acknowledging in reporting that the West Bank is occupied, TVNZ disagrees that in this case viewers were misinformed or misled in breach of the accuracy standard.

a)  ‘1News agrees that their style guide suggests … use of “occupied” when referring to the Occupied West Bank in a report. In the case of this bulletin, they acknowledge that the style guide was not followed, and they apologise to you if you found this upsetting.’

b)  The style guide recommends tone and wording in respect of this point. Not following the style guide does not automatically result in a breach of broadcasting standards.

c)  The Occupied West Bank was mentioned in the context of Palestinian detainees ‘being able to “come home” to the West Bank’. This context ‘provides the Palestinian viewpoint that this area is their rightful place (home) and is therefore not misleading to viewers’.

Fatalities at the Supernova festival

[11]  Number of fatalities: The BBC reporter ‘is a world leading authority on the Middle East’ who has done comprehensive short and long-form reports on the 7 October 2023 attacks. The figure cited is taken from the New York Times, an outlet which also has comprehensively reported on the 7 October 2023 attacks. Further, ‘the figure cited can be verified’ – ‘most reports mention more than 364 people’, including the United Nations,⁶ and ‘the NOVA Exhibition⁷ states 370 were killed’. ‘1News frequently mentions the death toll in Gaza.’

[12]  Festival attendees: ‘It is not correct to assume that all people at the Nova Festival were soldiers.’ The United Nations has stated, ‘Female civilians were deliberately killed by militants during their abduction or while trying to escape’.⁸

a)  Regardless, the level of violence (including sexual and gender-based violence) which occurred at the festival amounted to war crimes, including breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Whether ‘some of those attacked and killed had been subject to mandatory military conscription’ is therefore immaterial. The victims ‘were unarmed and not engaged in military operations’.

b)  In their response, TVNZ included extensive sections from a United Nations Human Rights Council report⁹ detailing the violence which occurred.

Hannibal Directive

[13]  The footage in the 1News broadcast is from ‘the Tkuma Car Wall in the Gaza envelope area’. A BBC video¹⁰ ‘provides evidence of the origin of the cars in the “car wall”. The video is described as “destroyed cars line road near festival site”.’

a)  This area initially ‘received hundreds of cars daily from the kibbutzes, the Nova party location, and other surrounding area affected and depending on the damage, each car was inspected by the Zaka, the police, or various other teams to identify the cars, or any remnants of bodies. Now the site serves as a memorial for the victims of October 7th that is open to the public…’.¹¹

[14]  ‘The numbers of confirmed deaths due to the Hannibal Directive simply do not equate to the number of cars in the 'wall of cars'…”. 

a)  The aforementioned United Nations report said, ‘The Commission also verified information indicating that, in at least two other cases, [IDF] had likely applied the Hannibal Directive, resulting in the killing of up to 14 Israeli civilians.’¹² TVNZ outlined additional sections of the report pertaining to the Hannibal Directive.¹³

Balance

[15]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint under the balance standard for the following reasons:

a)  Citing Guideline 5.3, the balance standard has ‘limited application to individual stories that form a small part of the coverage of an extensively covered, ongoing issue such as the conflict in Gaza’.

b)  The audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints relevant to the matters covered in this broadcast, and the wider Israel-Hamas conflict.

i)  The Israel-Hamas conflict has been discussed extensively by a myriad of New Zealand and international news outlets, including 1News, as well as ‘across digital media channels’. Thus, an ‘enormous array of perspectives [have] been published through these various channels and continue to be published as the conflict continues’.

c)  Regardless, the broadcast contained a range of significant viewpoints, and 1News covered the ceasefire in further detail in the period of current interest. Thus, when viewed in light of other broadcasts within the period of current interest, ‘the range of significant perspectives presented expands’.  

The standards

[16]  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.¹⁴ The standard states:¹⁵

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.

[17]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹⁶ The standard states:¹⁷

• 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.

Our analysis

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

[19]  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.¹⁸ The Authority has noted in numerous previous decisions¹⁹ the high public and political interest in the Israel-Hamas conflict. Accordingly, there was high public interest in a broadcast which covered recent developments in the conflict: the ceasefire and resulting hostage/prisoner exchanges.

Balance

[20]  Various criteria must be satisfied before the balance standard’s requirement to present alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.²⁰

[21]  Consistent with our previous decisions,²¹ we consider the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance – namely, the Israel-Hamas conflict. Accordingly, the standard applies.

[22]  However, we do not find any breach of the balance standard for the following reasons:

a)  We note the points made about emotive or biased language and we acknowledge the importance of careful language choice in reporting on the conflict (noting some media have been censured for their language choices).²² However, the balance standard does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented without bias. Instead, it is focused on the failure to present alternative perspectives on significant issues.²³

b)  The balance standard requires significant alternative perspectives to be presented ‘unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’.²⁴ The standard is reflective of New Zealand’s current broadcasting environment, including the proliferation of information available from sources on a vast range of topics. As we have previously recognised,²⁵ the Israel-Hamas conflict has been and continues to be covered extensively in a range of media. The ceasefire deal was also reported widely.²⁶ It is therefore reasonable to expect audiences to be aware of significant context and viewpoints on the issues canvassed in the broadcast. In these circumstances, inclusion of the additional points identified by the complainant were not required to avoid misleading the audience.

c)  The item presented Palestinian perspectives.²⁷ For example, it included:

i)  a statement from a freed Palestinian hostage/prisoner

ii)  footage of an IDF airstrike and widespread destruction in Gaza

iii)  mention of 19 Palestinians being killed by Israel due to the ceasefire’s three-hour-delay

iv)  a statement from a ‘Hamas Military Wing Spokesperson’

v)  footage of a Palestinian family ‘returning to find their house in ruin’ and a member of the family saying, amongst the rubble, ‘Our home is gone. Our situation is destroyed. Where can we go? Ten children. Where should I go with them in the tents? Where should I go with them on the streets?’

vi)  an Egyptian truck driver waiting to enter Gaza, saying, ‘We wish that every minute that passes we could go to these people. Those people cannot find food, drink, medicine or shelter. All their houses have been hit by strikes. They have nothing left.’

d)  Additionally, the BBC reporter criticised Benjamin Netanyahu in the postscript. He said, ‘A ceasefire, by definition, is a compromise between enemies. But since the October attacks, Prime Minister Netanyahu has talked repeatedly about getting all the hostages back through “total victory”: the complete annihilation of Hamas as a political and military force. But right now, that is not what the Israeli people are being offered.’

[23]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the balance complaint.

Accuracy

[24]  A portion of the complainant’s concerns relate to an alleged omission of context and the audience not receiving a full picture of the conflict. We consider these concerns are more appropriately addressed under balance, and they have been considered in our findings under that standard.²⁸

Failure to identify the West Bank as occupied territory

[25]  The complainant said reference to the occupied West Bank as ‘the West Bank’ was a material error of fact. TVNZ said the context of the Palestinian hostages/prisoners being ‘welcomed home’ indicated the occupied West Bank ‘is their rightful place (home)’. As such, viewers would not have been misinformed or misled by the report not stating the West Bank is, under international law, illegally occupied by Israel.

[26]  We acknowledge the importance of terminology when reporting on this conflict, particularly when describing the status of land. We have previously noted the need for care when using adjectives to describe the Palestinian Occupied Territories:²⁹  

We acknowledge issues of geography in Israel and Palestine are particularly fraught, and the geographic descriptions used by broadcasters can have a significant impact on the audience’s understanding of, and views on, the conflict. Broadcasters must therefore be aware of, and sensitive to, the history and context of events in this region and take care with the geographical labels used during broadcasts reporting on these events.

[27]  Highlighting the West Bank’s occupied status would have been consistent with TVNZ’s style guide, compliance with which could have avoided the issues and complaint on this point. However, we are also conscious the term was used only once, in connection with footage of Palestinians welcoming 90 hostages/prisoners home, ‘Huge crowds cheering, waving flags, and setting off fireworks across the West Bank.’ In this context, and in the broader context of a five-and-a-half-minute segment focused on the ceasefire and release of hostages/prisoners, viewers were unlikely to be misled by the absence of explicit reference to the ‘occupied’ West Bank.³⁰

[28]  Our decision on this broadcast does not detract from our view such geographic descriptions are capable of significantly impacting the audience’s understanding of, and views on, the Israel-Hamas conflict in some cases. We therefore continue to encourage broadcasters to exercise care and sensitivity with such terminology and geographic labels.³¹

Number of fatalities at the Supernova festival

[29]  The complainant alleges it was inaccurate to authoritatively state ‘more than 380 people’ were killed by Hamas at the site of the Supernova festival. The Authority has previously indicated that when reporting on the Israel-Hamas conflict, a sensitive topic carrying a high level of public interest, it is particularly important for casualty figures to be accurately reported and verified.³²

[30]  We have also recognised the challenges of verifying facts of this nature and that it is not the Authority’s role to do so.³³ Our role is to assess whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of broadcast content.

[31]  In this case, it was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on the BBC’s report – which, in turn, relied on New York Times reports.³⁴ The Rolling Stone article cited by the complainant estimated 260 people were killed, in keeping with a figure provided by the Israeli rescue service ZAKA immediately following the 7 October attacks.³⁵ The article was released one week after the 7 October attack, on 15 October 2023. However, in the months following 7 October, reports from various outlets cited a range of casualty figures, from 360 to more than 380.³⁶ Overall, there was no obvious reason for TVNZ to doubt the accuracy of the casualty figures.

Attendees at the festival

[32]  The complainant said ‘nearly all Israelis at the [Supernova festival] were currently serving in the IDF or were in the IDF reserve units. As such, they were neither civilians, nor just “party goers”’.

[33]  Again, it is not the Authority’s role to assess the accuracy of this point. We are not in a position to determine the occupational status of the Supernova festival attendees, nor did the complainant provide evidence to support this allegation. Regardless, we consider it was not inaccurate or misleading to refer to those killed at the site of the Supernova festival as ‘people’, ‘party-goers’, and ‘festival-goers’. It also was not inaccurate or misleading for a broadcast of this nature to not raise or consider such an allegation.

Hannibal Directive

[34]  The Hannibal Directive is a protocol or directive which ‘allows the Israeli military to use any force necessary to prevent Israeli soldiers from being captured and taken into enemy territory – up to and including action that will lead to those captives’ deaths’.³⁷

[35]  The broadcast described one of the memorials near the festival site, noting, ‘A short distance away is another memorial: the festival-goers' cars, hundreds of them destroyed in the attack’. However, the complainant said the car memorial is ‘constructed substantially of vehicles destroyed by Israeli forces in the exercise of the Hannibal Directive’. This suggests it is misleading to:

a)  indicate the cars were destroyed in ‘the attack’ (which, in the context, we consider is likely to be interpreted as Hamas’ attack at the festival)

b)  suggest all the cars were those of ‘festival goers’, because they may have come from other areas where reports cited by the complainant suggest the Hannibal Directive may have been applied.

[36]  The complainant also noted TVNZ had not reported on the IDF’s use of the Hannibal Directive despite sources confirming it had been invoked on 7 October 2023.³⁸

[37]  Again, we are not able to assess the origins of vehicles in this memorial. However, we note TVNZ identified sources (see paragraph [13]) which support an argument the memorial included festival-goers’ vehicles and vehicles from other locations. Regardless, describing the memorial as comprised of festival-goers' cars destroyed in the attack (by Hamas) creates no material inaccuracy in the broadcast’s depiction of a sombre location and memorial to those who died nor in its broader reporting on the ceasefire development.

[38]  In the context of this broadcast, we are satisfied the absence of comment regarding application of the Hannibal Directive was also unlikely to mislead the audience.

[39]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
29 July 2025  

 
Appendix

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

1  Minto’s original complaint – 24 January 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 24 February 2025

3  Minto’s referral to the Authority – 14 and 16 March 2025

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 28 March 2025

¹ David Browne, Nancy Dillon, Kory Grow “‘They Wanted To Dance in Peace. And They Got Slaughtered’” Rolling Stone (online ed, 15 October 2023)
² United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (A/HRC/56/26, 27 May 2024)
³ For an explanation of what the Hannibal Directive is, see paragraph [34]
⁴ Asa Winstanley “How Israel killed hundreds of its own people on 7 October” The Electronic Intifada (online ed, 7 October 2024)
⁵ “Israeli troops forcibly remove staff, patients from Gaza hospital, officials say” 1News (online ed, 28 December 2024); “Israeli offensive shifts to crowded southern Gaza” 1News (online ed, 3 December 2023); and “Kiwi in Israel says hopes for peace fading on the ground” 1News (online ed, 29 October 2023)
⁶ United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (A/HRC/56/26, 27 May 2024) at 16
⁷ The Nova Music Festival Exhibition <novaexhibition.com>
⁸ United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (A/HRC/56/26, 27 May 2024) at 27
⁹ At 24, 25, and 27-30
¹⁰ “Destroyed cars line road near Israel festival in chilling video” BBC (online ed, 9 October 2023)
¹¹ Getty Images “Life In Israel In The Run Up To The First Anniversary October 7th Attacks” <gettyimages.co.uk>
¹² United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel (A/HRC/56/26, 27 May 2024) at 36
¹³ At 34-37
¹⁴ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁵ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁶ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁷ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁹ See Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [12]; Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [17]; and Wellington Palestine Group and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2018-053 at [9]
²⁰ Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [10] and Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [9]
²¹ See Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [11]; Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [11]; Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [38], Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [25]; and Maasland and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-065 at [13]
²² Centre for Media Monitoring BBC on Gaza-Israel: One Story, Double Standards (16 June 2025)
²³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand and, for a similar finding, see Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [13]
²⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
²⁵ See Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [12]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [15]; Pack-Baldry et al and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [39]; Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [26]; Lafraie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-114 at [14]
²⁶ See Lyndal Rowlands, Zaheena Rasheed, Urooba Jamal, Mersiha Gadzo, Alma Milisic, Nils Adler and Federica Marsi “Updates: Israel-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza holds, Palestinian prisoners freed” Al Jazeera (online ed, 19 January 2025); David Gritten “Hamas releases first Israeli hostages after Gaza ceasefire takes effect” BBC (online ed, 20 January 2025); Sophie Tanno, Lauren Kent and Christian Edwards “A long-awaited ceasefire has finally begun in Gaza. Here's what we know” RNZ (online ed, 20 January 2025); Malak A Tantesh and Jason Burke “‘Should we grieve, rejoice or cry?’: Palestinians in Gaza react to ceasefire” The Guardian (online ed, 19 January 2025); Jerome Socolovsky and Kat Lonsdorf “First Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners freed in ceasefire deal with Hamas” NPR (online ed, 19 January 2025); and Mohammed Salem, Nidal Al-Mughrabi and James Mackenzie “Hamas frees hostages, Israel releases Palestinian prisoners on day one of ceasefire” Reuters (online ed, 21 January 2025)
²⁷ For a similar finding, see Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-002 at [53]
²⁸ For a similar finding, see Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [14] and Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [19]
²⁹ Wellington Palestine Group and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2018-053 at [10], citing Wellington Palestine Group and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2016-048 at [12]
³⁰ For a similar finding, see Wellington Palestine Group and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2016-048 at [13] and [14]
³¹ For a similar finding, see Wellington Palestine Group and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2016-048 at [12]
³² Vincent and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2018-058 at [7]
³³ See, for example, Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [21]; Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [15]; and Anderson, The Auckland Jewish Council and Leverton and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2003-028, 2003-029, 2003-030 at [68]
³⁴ Guideline 6.3; TVNZ did not cite which New York Times articles the BBC relied on. However, various New York Times articles report ‘more than 380’ people were killed at the site of the festival, including: German Lopez “One Year Later” New York Times (online ed, 7 October 2024); “Anger and Pain Permeate Observances a Year After Hamas Attack” New York Times (online ed, published 6 October 2024, updated 5 May 2025); Isabel Kershner “Remembering the Nova Festival Victims, With the Sounds of War as a Backdrop” New York Times (online ed, 7 October 2024); and “Israel Delays Prisoner Release After Hamas Frees 6 Hostages” New York Times (online ed, published 22 February 2025, updated 5 May 2025)
³⁵ “Families of Hamas captives worry over loved ones as Israel pummels Gaza” Al Jazeera (online ed, 10 October 2023); Francesca Gillet and Alice Cuddy “Israeli music festival: 260 bodies recovered from site where people fled in hail of bullets” BBC (online ed, 10 October 2023); Tia Goldenberg and Wafaa Shurafa “Hamas Israel attack: Israel declares war, approves ‘significant’ steps to retaliate for surprise attack by Hamas” NZ Herald (online ed, 9 October 2023); Haley Ott “Israel vows to ‘destroy Hamas’ as death toll rises from unprecedented attack; several Americans confirmed dead” CBS News (online ed, 8 October 2023); and Ben Doherty, Maya Yang, Angelique Chrisafis, Daisy Dumas and Graham Russel “Hundreds of bodies recovered from Israel music festival – as it happened” The Guardian (online ed, 8 October 2023, updated 9 October 2023)
³⁶ Nancy Dillon “I Was At The Nova Festival. Oct. 7 Is Every Day Now” Rolling Stone (online ed, 7 October 2024); “Israel marks a year since deadly Hamas-led October 7 attack” Al Jazeera (online ed, 7 October 2024); “Israel marks 7 October with memorials and protests, as attacks on Lebanon and Gaza continue” The Guardian (online ed, 7 October 2024); Haley Ott “Israelis mark a year since Hamas' Oct. 7 terror attack with hostages still in Gaza and war growing around them” CBS News (online ed, 7 October 2024); Rania Aniftos “Nova Music Festival Exhibit Coming to NYC Following Tragedy at Israeli Event” Billboard (online ed, 27 March 2024); Wyre Davies “Israeli ex-hostage returns to site of Nova festival massacre and kidnappings” BBC (online ed, 6 January 2024); Sanya Burgess “'I can still smell the bodies': What happened after Hamas left the Nova festival site in Israel” Sky News (online ed, 8 December 2023); and Eleanor Beardsley “Israel holds memorial at the music festival site where Hamas killed 364 people” NPR (online ed, 28 November 2023)
³⁷ “Why did Israel deploy Hannibal Directive, allowing killing of own citizens?” Al Jazeera (online ed, 9 July 2024)
³⁸ Yaniv Kubovich “IDF Ordered Hannibal Directive on October 7 to Prevent Hamas Taking Soldiers Captive” Haaretz (online ed, 7 July 2024); Eric Tlozek, Orly Halpern, Allyson Horn “Israeli forces accused of killing their own citizens under the 'Hannibal Directive' during October 7 chaos” ABC News (online ed, 7 September 2024); Alisha Rahaman Sarkar “Israel accused of risking hostage lives by invoking controversial ‘Hannibal Directive’ during 7 October attack” Independent (online ed, 8 July 2024); Asa Winstanley “How Israel killed hundreds of its own people on 7 October” The Electronic Intifada (online ed, 7 October 2024); and Asa Winstanley “Army was ordered to kill Israelis on 7 October, defense minister confirms” The Electronic Intifada (online ed, 7 February 2025)