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 about a 1News item on 28 June 2025 reporting, ‘An Israeli newspaper’s claim that soldiers were ordered to fire on unarmed Palestinians queuing for aid in occupied Gaza has been strongly denied by Israel’s Prime Minister. A US- and Israeli-backed aid provider is also rejecting any link between its sites and the deaths…’ The complaint was that the broadcaster avoided evidence of Israel’s responsibility for the killings and ‘still [would] not report who was responsible’, instead putting ‘overwhelming emphasis’ on ‘the denials’. The Authority did not agree, finding the main item led with strong statements and footage conveying Palestinian suffering, and otherwise contained sufficient information and perspectives to meet the requirements of the standards. The particular aspects PSNA would have preferred to be reported (eg the name of the Israeli newspaper) did not, by their omission, render the item inaccurate or misleading.  

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A 1News item broadcast on 28 June 2025 reported, in its entirety:

1News Presenter:      Now, the next story includes images you may find distressing. An Israeli newspaper’s claim that soldiers were ordered to fire on unarmed Palestinians queuing for aid in occupied Gaza has been strongly denied by Israel’s Prime Minister. A US- and Israeli-backed aid provider is also rejecting any link between its sites and the deaths. The BBC’s [reporter] reports from Jerusalem. 

BBC Reporter:          To make Gaza’s aid more secure, Israel told Gaza’s people to walk through a war zone to get it. 

Interviewee:               [Translated voiceover] This is a death trap for us. This is not aid. This is the road to death. I don’t want to eat if I’ll be shot at. 

BBC Reporter:           Footage from the first days of Gaza’s new privately-run aid system showed chaos near the distribution sites. Hungry crowds pinned down by gunfire. The UN [United Nations] says more than 400 people are reported to have been killed by Israeli forces near the sites in the first month of operation. [Name] was injured near one site last week. 

Injured man:              [Translated voiceover] I was going to bring food to my family, to my siblings. We got injured. There was a lot of fire. It’s food with the taste of blood. 

Paramedic:                 [Translated voiceover] I plead with everyone not to go to the aid sites. Every day we face the same scenario: martyrs, injuries and numbers that we can’t endure. The hospitals cannot process all the injuries they receive. 

BBC Reporter:           Today, the head of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation [(GHF)] told the BBC his operation was not connected to the hundreds of deaths and accused the UN of misinformation.

GHF:                           We’re not denying that there are casualties in the Gaza Strip. We’re not even denying that there are casualties within proximity to aid distribution sites. What we’re saying is a hundred percent of those casualties are being attributed to close proximity to GHF – that is not true. A hundred percent of the casualties are being attributed to the IDF – as best as we can tell, that’s also not true.

BBC Reporter:          Tonight, Israel’s army strongly rejected a local media report that soldiers had been told to fire on unarmed crowds and said incidents were being examined. Its Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said the media accusations were ‘contemptible blood libels’ and ‘malicious falsehoods designed to defame the IDF’.

After a two-month Israeli aid blockade, hunger drives many decisions in Gaza, drives crowds to surge towards the promise of food, risking death to stay alive.

1News Presenter:      And this week the US State Department announced almost fifty million dollars in funding for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.

The complaint

[2]  John Minto, on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), complained this broadcast, along with two other 1News items on 2 July¹ and 6 July 2025², breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. PSNA submitted this broadcast breached the standards for the following reasons.

[3]  PSNA said 1News has ‘deliberately avoided accepting evidence’ for over a month and still will not state who was responsible for numerous killings of Palestinians at aid centres – despite ‘powerful new first-hand admissions from IDF soldiers’ in the Israeli daily Haaretz³ that Israel is indeed doing the killings and been responsible for doing so right from the establishment of the GHF sites.

[4]  Instead, the leading statement in the 28 June item was a denial of the Haaretz story by Netanyahu, and the ‘overwhelming emphasis of the item’ from the BBC reporter was on the denials, including the head of the GHF denying ‘at length’ that either GHF or the IDF were ‘100 percent’ responsible, the IDF denying responsibility and ‘investigating’ the claims, and Netanyahu denouncing the claims as ‘blood libel’.

[5]  1News should have informed its viewers ‘of the actual name of a major Israeli newspaper with an extensive story that severely undermined the credibility of the Israeli denials broadcast by 1News over the past month.’ No Haaretz reporter or any IDF soldiers were interviewed.

[6]  The item ‘did state an indirect accusation by the UN that it was Israel which had killed 400 people but included no details from any UN statement. The item said that the UN was simply reporting what some other unnamed party was saying.’

[7]  ‘So, 1News viewers are left with the belief, reinforced with yet another 1News broadcast, that the culpability for the killings is unlikely to be that of Israel.’

[8]  On referring the complaint to the Authority, PSNA noted, ‘subsequently there has been further first-hand evidence, reported in the US media, from a former employee of GHF contractor Anthony Aguilar, of the IDF killings. If 1News is so keen to broadcast denials of killings by Israel, then 1News has an equal obligation to report newsworthy sourced first-hand whistle blower evidence, such as from Haaretz and Aguilar, that the IDF is in fact killing people at the GHF sites. It has not done so.’

The broadcaster’s response

[9]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons.

Accuracy

[10]  TVNZ disagreed the complainant’s framing of the item as a ‘denial story’ was ‘a remotely reasonable assessment’.

[11]  To ‘properly inform the audience regarding the matters at hand’, statements were included from the implicated parties, attributed to Netanyahu and the head of the GHF. The fact these statements were denials of allegations also discussed in the story ‘does not colour the reporting as a whole as an expression of “denial”’. The broader context provided in the report conveyed the immense suffering of Palestinians and the desperate situations they face in attempting to access basic necessities. TVNZ ‘strongly disagreed’ the story ‘served to imply or reinforce that Israel is not, or is “unlikely to be”, culpable for these killings’.

[12]  TVNZ also did not agree the name of the Israeli news outlet was ‘a crucial inclusion’ for viewers’ understanding of the events. The substance of the serious allegations published by that outlet was accurately conveyed in the presenter’s introduction.

[13]  Similarly, TVNZ disagreed that more extensive details of the UN statement were crucial to viewers’ understanding. The wording used was consistent with how the UN described the issue in its media releases.⁴ ‘Clearly, the UN considers such reports (of Israeli forces killing more than 400 Palestinians near [GHF]-run sites) to be credible’, and this is what viewers would have understood from this brief statement in the report – even if the Palestinian perspectives did not specifically cite Israel as the party shooting at them or near aid sites.

[14]  In this context, TVNZ strongly disagreed viewers would be left with the impression ‘that the gunfire in question originated from a party or parties other than the IDF’.

Balance

[15]  TVNZ agreed ‘the issue of Israeli soldiers allegedly targeting unarmed civilians seeking aid during a humanitarian crisis in Gaza’ amounted to a controversial issue of public importance to which the balance standard applied. However, it was satisfied there was no breach of the balance standard. Palestinian perspectives were included throughout the report:

a)  Footage was shown of terrified Palestinians fleeing amidst gunfire and blurred dead or injured bodies.

b)  A terrified Palestinian described the aid sites as ‘a death trap’.

c)  A statement from the UN clearly described that Palestinians were being killed by the IDF at the aid sites.

d)  The item conveyed that Israeli-based media had reported that IDF soldiers were ‘ordered to fire on unarmed Palestinians queuing for aid in occupied Gaza’.

[16]  Statements were also included from those accused of breaching their humanitarian obligations (Netanyahu and the head of the GHF). Reporting a significant viewpoint is not endorsing it, and reporting these views is a requirement of the standard.

[17]  Given this range of perspectives, specific viewpoints from Haaretz or IDF soldiers were not necessary to meet the expectations of the standard.

[18]  Further, the Authority’s guidance (based on past decisions) is clear: ‘The balance standard does not require that every possible view on a complex issue be contained within one broadcast. A key consideration … is whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including other media (ie is it an ongoing topic of debate).’ The issue in question has been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect viewers to be aware of alternative viewpoints.

[19]  Responding to the referral, TVNZ said it reported the ‘subsequent evidence’ that PSNA alleged it had not reported, in 1News on 26 July 2025: ‘The statement of a US soldier is heard, about the IDF shooting Palestinians seeking aid. He is reported as saying he left after witnessing what he describes as war crimes. Anthony Aguilar, Special Forces Veteran, says “In my entire career have I never witnessed the level of brutality and use of indiscriminate, unnecessary force, against an unarmed, starving population.”’

The standards

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

• 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 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.⁷ The standard states:⁸

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 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.⁹

[24]  As we have previously recognised, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and reporting on significant developments in the conflict, carries high public interest.¹⁰

[25]  The complaint expressed concerns alleging TVNZ’s reporting on this topic demonstrates ‘systematic bias’ – which is not within our mandate to consider, since we are limited to considering formal complaints about specific broadcasts, and the standards alleged to have been breached are also not directed at preventing bias. We have, however, carefully considered each of the 1News broadcasts raised in PSNA’s complaint (28 June, 2 July and 6 July 2025). For clarity, each broadcast is addressed in a separate decision,¹¹ but in each case we have identified no actual or potential harm arising from the aspects complained about, at a level that justifies our intervention or restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. Our reasons in relation to the 28 June 2025 broadcast are outlined below.

Accuracy

[26]  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.

[27]  Our understanding of the crux of this complaint is PSNA disagreed with the framing and focus of this 1News item and considered it misleading. In its view, ‘overwhelming emphasis’ was unduly placed on Israel’s and the GHF’s ‘denials’ of the allegations, including by mentioning them in the introduction, and PSNA would have preferred:

a)  someone from Haaretz or an IDF ‘whistleblower’ to be interviewed for the BBC item

b)  further details on the UN’s statement about the number of reported deaths; and

c)  the name of the relevant Israeli news outlet (Haaretz) to be reported in the item.

[28]  The accuracy standard is concerned only with material points. It is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.¹²

[29]  Taking the item as a whole, we do not consider any of the above aspects, viewed either in isolation or in terms of the overall impact, resulted in the item being materially inaccurate or misleading, or that their omission would have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the broadcast.

[30]  We do not agree the overall impact of, or impression created by this item was that ‘culpability for the killings [at aid sites] is unlikely to be that of Israel’, nor that the ‘overwhelming emphasis’ of the BBC item was on ‘the denials’.

[31]  Immediately following the presenter’s introduction reporting ‘an Israeli newspaper’s claim that soldiers were ordered to fire on unarmed Palestinians queuing for aid in occupied Gaza’, the BBC item led with strong statements and confronting footage conveying the plight of Palestinians, including:

• ‘To make Gaza’s aid more secure, Israel told Gaza’s people to walk through a war zone to get it.’ (BBC reporter)
• ‘This is a death trap for us. This is not aid. This is the road to death. I don’t want to eat if I’ll be shot at.’ (interviewee)
• ‘Footage from the first days of Gaza’s new privately-run aid system showed chaos near the distribution sites. Hungry crowds pinned down by gunfire.’ (BBC reporter, accompanied by footage of people fleeing gunfire, amid dead and injured bodies)
•  ‘The UN says more than 400 people are reported to have been killed by Israeli forces near the sites in the first month of operation.’ (BBC reporter)
• ‘I was going to bring food to my family, to my siblings. We got injured. There was a lot of fire. It’s food with the taste of blood.’ (interviewee)
• ‘I plead with everyone not to go to the aid sites. Every day we face the same scenario: martyrs, injuries and numbers that we can’t endure…’ (paramedic)

[32]  In this context, it was not necessary to include specific viewpoints from Haaretz, nor the Israeli soldiers Haaretz relied on. It was also not necessary to report Haaretz by name nor signal it was a ‘major daily’. The substance of the claims was sufficiently clear.

[33]  It was reasonable – and would be expected – that the bulletin reported Netanyahu’s, the IDF’s and the GHF’s responses to Haaretz’s claims. We note Haaretz also reported in its article header summary, ‘Netanyahu, [and Israeli Defence Minister] Katz reject claims, call them “blood libels”.’

[34]  These responses to Haaretz’s claims did not dominate or overshadow the rest of the 1News report. Immediately after reporting Netanyahu called the accusations ‘malicious falsehoods’ and ‘blood libels’, the BBC reporter concluded the item by again highlighting Palestinian suffering: ‘After a two-month Israeli aid blockade, hunger drives many decisions in Gaza, drives crowds to surge towards the promise of food, risking death to stay alive.’

[35]  We also do not agree that stating the UN said 400 people were ‘reported’ to have been killed by Israeli forces near the aid sites undermined this statement. Viewers would still have appreciated the statement came from the UN and were otherwise given sufficient information throughout the bulletin to make their own judgement about the respective positions.

[36]  Finally, as we have noted previously, developments in the conflict are ongoing and frequently reported, minimising the likelihood anyone would be materially misled by a single item or statement.¹³ It is apparent from the numerous bulletins referenced in the parties’ correspondence around the time of this broadcast – four between 28 June and 6 July 2025 – that TVNZ provided regular coverage on various aspects of developments in the conflict around that time and both sides’ positions, giving a feel for the complexity of this conflict.

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

Balance

[38]  For the same reasons discussed in relation to accuracy, we do not consider this item was unbalanced or would have left viewers uninformed on the matters discussed. Significant perspectives were adequately presented, and the standard clearly recognises that viewers can, in any event, reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints available in a wide range of coverage both by TVNZ and other outlets.

[39]  We find no breach of the balance standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
17 December 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Minto’s original complaint – 10 July 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 7 August 2025

3  Minto’s referral to the Authority – 1 September 2025

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 18 September 2025

5  Minto’s further comments – 29 September 2025

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 7 October 2025

¹ Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-081
² Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082
³ Nir Hasson, Yaniv Kubovich and Bar Peleg “'It’s a Killing Field’: IDF Soldiers Ordered to Shoot Deliberately at Unarmed Gazans Waiting for Humanitarian Aid” Haaretz (online ed, June 27, 2025)
⁴ For example, “UN rights office ‘horrified’ by deadly violence at Gaza food distribution sites” UN News (online ed, 18 June 2025): ‘As the pall of starvation hangs over Gaza, UN agencies have sounded the alarm over deadly violence at food distribution points, where over 400 Palestinians have reportedly been killed in recent weeks while trying to access desperately needed humanitarian aid.’
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁸ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ See, for example: Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-027 at [8]; 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]
¹¹ See also Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-081 and Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082
¹² Guideline 6.2
¹³ Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-027 at [8]