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 a 1News item reporting the latest developments in the Middle East conflict and the end of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found reasonable viewers were unlikely to be misled by neither the reporter’s brief statement that ‘Israel and Hamas have accused each other of breaching the January ceasefire’ nor the absence of further context.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1News, broadcast on 19 March 2025, covered the resumption of Israeli military attacks on Gaza, ending a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The item was introduced:

To the Middle East now, where the death toll from Israel’s strikes in Gaza, ending the fragile ceasefire there, has risen to more than 400, according to the local health ministry. Today, Israel is vowing to continue its attack until Hamas is destroyed, with civilians told to evacuate as it readies its ground forces. However, a key Hamas ally has promised to do everything in its power against Israel. [1News reporter] has the latest developments.

[2]  The item included comment from a Nasser Hospital doctor, a BBC correspondent, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and a member of the public:

1News reporter:                       These flares signalled a second night of Israeli attacks in Gaza. Earlier, we saw the result of the first wave of strikes. While this man was found alive in the rubble, hundreds were killed according to the local health ministry, including more than 130 children.

Nasser Hospital doctor:          One little boy had … two injuries to his heart, a cracked right liver, an injury to his small bowel, his stomach and his colon … and an injury to his left lung. I’m sure he will die.

1News reporter:                       This view from the Israeli border town of Sderot shows the scale of Gaza’s destruction as the offensive continued.

BBC correspondent:               We could still hear the distant sound of explosions in Gaza and also some pretty heavy machine gun fire, fighter jets in the air.

1News reporter:                       Israel says its airstrikes were aimed at Hamas, and reports say at least four of its officials died in the first night’s attack, seen as one of the deadliest days of the conflict so far. Gazans evacuated, just as Israel argued Hamas was to blame for the death toll.

Netanyahu:                               And when these terrorists embed themselves in civilian areas, when they use civilians as human shields, they’re the ones who are responsible for all unintended casualties.

1News reporter:                       Israel and Hamas have accused each other of breaching the January ceasefire. Today, Yemen’s Houthi rebels, themselves facing recent attacks from US forces, promise to join the fight.

[Translating footage of the Houthis’ leader]   Their leader said they’d do everything in their power against Israel in support of the Palestinian people.

Israel’s government faces pressure on the home front too. Thousands gathered in Tel Aviv, saying the government’s airstrikes jeopardised the return of hostages.

Member of the public:             [Does] the government [work] for us? Do they care about us, the people?

1News reporter:                       Scenes like this [many dead bodies lined up] seem likely to be repeated, as Israel warns its attacks on Hamas are only the beginning.

The complaint

[3]  John Minto complained on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) the reporter’s statement, ‘Israel and Hamas have accused each other of breaching the January ceasefire’ breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• This was a ‘critical issue’ that was ‘set aside to be replaced by lazy, inaccurate “each side accuses the other…” reportage’.
• It is ‘true that accusations were made by both sides but simply stating this is not … professional journalism, which requires a critical examination and to provide accurate details, their context and veracity’.
• The statement was misleading by failing to mention:
  • ‘Israel had rejected its obligations under the January ceasefire agreement to enter into subsequent phases of the agreement for a permanent ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza’ – so it did not comply to begin with.
  • The ‘nearly [two] hundred Palestinians killed by Israel, mostly by snipers, since the ceasefire began’.
  • Israel had cut off ‘virtually all aid and supplies into Gaza in early March’.
  • ‘Israel reneged on its release-of-captive agreements, such as on 22 February 2025.’
  • An examination of the allegations by Israel against Hamas in this regard which would show they ‘hardly constitute breaches’ (the complainant detailed a number of examples).
• (On referring the complaint to the Authority) ‘While it is true that Israel did claim Hamas had breached the ceasefire, all credible news agency reporting puts the blame for the end of the ceasefire unambiguously on Israel.’ The complainant pointed to examples of Television New Zealand Ltd’s (TVNZ) own coverage on 18 and 21 March 2025, and provided a newspaper story published on 6 May 2025, highlighting the statement, “Israel ended a ceasefire with Hamas and resumed attacks on Gaza on March 18”. Minto also later pointed to an example of ‘correct’ reporting by TVNZ on 1 June 2025 which attributed the blame to Israel for ending the ceasefire.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons.

• The 1News presenter introduced the item by stating, ‘to the Middle East now, where the death toll from Israel’s strikes in Gaza, ending the fragile ceasefire there, has risen to more than 400 according to the local health ministry’ (TVNZ’s emphasis).
• It provided many examples of its other coverage on this issue, both on television and online, before and after the 19 March broadcast. ‘The 1News reports frequently mentioned the Palestinian death toll caused by the Israeli airstrikes.’
• The complainant raised various issues ‘which were not part of the 1News reporting on 19 March and indeed were not discussed in any of the news stories we have discussed [in its decision]. [TVNZ] cannot respond to these issues [as] part of the formal complaint process as the allegations you have made are not relevant to the 1News reporting’.

The standard

[5]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹ The standard states:²

• 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

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

[7]   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.³

[8]  As we have previously recognised, the Israel-Palestine conflict and reporting on significant developments in the conflict, such as the end of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, carries high public interest.⁴ For the reasons below, we have identified no actual or potential harm arising from the reporter’s statement complained about, at a level that justifies our intervention or restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

[9]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. If it was, the second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[10]  We are satisfied the reporter’s single statement in the middle of the item, that ‘Israel and Hamas have accused each other of breaching the ceasefire’, was not materially inaccurate and would not have misled viewers in the manner alleged.

[11]  As noted by the broadcaster, the opening line of the 1News presenter’s introduction clearly stated, ‘the death toll from Israel’s strikes in Gaza, ending the fragile ceasefire there, has risen to more than 400’ (our emphasis).

[12]  The reporter went on to detail this was the ‘second night of Israeli attacks in Gaza’, ‘hundreds were killed according to the local health ministry, including more than 130 children’, and ‘the scale of Gaza’s destruction as the offensive continues’ – before showing Netanyahu’s brief comment and mentioning ‘Israel argued Hamas was to blame for the death toll’.

[13]  The reporter’s statement at issue followed but was not dwelt on. The reporter then immediately after reported Yemen’s Houthi would ‘do everything in their power against Israel in support of the Palestinian people’ and that ‘Israel’s government faces pressure on the home front too. Thousands gathered in Tel Aviv, saying the government’s airstrikes jeopardised the return of hostages.’

[14]  In this context, where it was clearly signalled in the introduction that Israel’s attacks had ‘[ended] the fragile ceasefire’, and the thrust of the item was the resumption of attacks on Gaza by Israel and the impacts of those attacks, we do not consider a detailed examination of the merits of Israel’s accusation(s) Hamas had breached the ceasefire was required in the interests of ensuring accuracy or would have materially altered viewers’ understanding.

[15]  Further, developments in the conflict are ongoing and frequently reported, minimising the likelihood anyone would be materially misled by a single item or statement. In its decision, TVNZ provided numerous examples of its coverage both before and after the 19 March broadcast reporting on various aspects of the ceasefire and both sides’ positions, giving a feel for the complexity of this conflict.

[16]  The fleeting mention in this item that Israel had accused Hamas of breaching the ceasefire was accurate – as the complaint acknowledges – and unlikely to cause harm in the context, even without the detailed background or further information the complainant wished to be included.

[17]  For these reasons, we do not consider a reasonable viewer was likely to be misled in the manner the complaint describes, and we do not uphold the 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 – 28 March 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 16 April 2025

3  Minto’s referral to the Authority – 13 May 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 3 June 2025

5  Minto’s further comments – 8 June 2025

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 16 June 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ See Pack-Baldry et al and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [12]; 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]