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 2 July 2025 reporting ‘a ceasefire in occupied Gaza could be on the cards with all eyes tonight on Hamas and whether it’ll accept the latest proposal. It follows Donald Trump announcing on social media that, quote, “Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise a 60-day ceasefire”.’ Key points of the complaint included: 1News persistently reports Israel’s actions ‘in the passive voice’, avoiding attributing responsibility to Israel (including for breaking an earlier ceasefire); stating the October 2023 attacks killed ‘around 1200 people’ was incorrect as it did not account for deaths inflicted under the Hannibal Directive; and TVNZ’s sources did not support the statement that Hamas had a ‘red line’ that it ‘must remain in control of Gaza’. The Authority found the item included an adequate range of perspectives under the balance standard, and the points identified did not result in the item being materially inaccurate and would not have significantly affected the audience’s overall understanding. Developments in the conflict carry high public interest and were, and continue to be, reported frequently by TVNZ and other media, reducing the likelihood of any one item misinforming the audience.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A 1News item broadcast on 2 July 2025 reported, in its entirety:

1News Presenter:                 To other news now and a ceasefire in occupied Gaza could be on the cards with all eyes tonight on Hamas and whether it’ll accept the latest proposal. It follows Donald Trump announcing on social media that, quote, “Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalise a 60-day ceasefire”. The US President saying Qatar and Egypt have worked hard on the deal, and he hopes Hamas accepts because it won’t “get any better”, it’ll “only get worse”. There’s been no response from Hamas or Israel so far.

Israel’s military operation in Gaza started after Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack in Israel in October 2023, killing around 1200 people and taking more than 250 hostage. More than 56-and-a-half thousand Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since then [onscreen graphic: 56,647 Gaza deaths], according to the Hamas-run Health Ministry. A previous ceasefire agreement earlier this year failed. Donald Trump’s announcement comes just ahead of a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. [Reporter] has more.

1News Reporter:                   Death and grief’s been a constant across the 634 days of war in Gaza. In the southern city of Khan Yunis, 44 more people were killed in Israeli airstrikes and shootings. At least eight women and six children among the dead.

Interviewee:                           [Translated voiceover] Two missiles, two helicopter missiles on a tent. They were asleep. By God, they were asleep.

1News Reporter:                   Public pressure is growing in Israel, too, to end the conflict.

Hostage’s brother:                Everyone knows that Hamas has been defeated. What more is left to do in Gaza that has not already been done? Bringing our hostages back now is the true victory.

1News Reporter:                   50 hostages remain in Gaza, more than half are believed dead. Any hope of getting the rest back alive may rely on a ceasefire being reached. Although Trump’s terms that got Israel on side are unclear, a 60-day truce could be sold to Israel’s far-right political brokers as just a pause.

Israeli Foreign Minister:       We are serious, as I told the Minister, in our will to reach a hostage deal and a ceasefire. This war can end any day if Hamas releases our hostages and lays down its arms.

1News Reporter:                   After touting his success with the Israel-Iran ceasefire, Trump wants to wrap this war up too.

Journalist [to Trump]:          How firm are you gonna be with Netanyahu about ending the war in Gaza?

President Trump:                  Very firm, very firm. But he wants it too, I will tell you. He’s coming here next week.

1News Reporter:                   He’s urged Hamas to get on board “for the good of the Middle East”, as otherwise “it will only get worse”. A stall in peace negotiations needs this push from Trump, but getting Hamas to forego its red lines would be a challenge. It’s long pushed for a permanent ceasefire, the total withdrawal of Israeli forces, and to remain in charge of Gaza – all of which Israel has rejected before too, without all its hostages returned. For now, the Israeli offensive continues, making it clear any prospect of peace is still far from certain.

The complaint

[2]  John Minto, on behalf of Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), complained this broadcast, along with two other 1News items on 28 June¹ and 6 July 2025², breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. PSNA submitted this broadcast breached the standards for the following reasons:

a)  1News persistently reports Hamas-inflicted deaths ‘in the active voice’ and Israel-inflicted deaths ‘in the passive voice’. This practice is unbalanced and misleading. 1News also reported ‘in the passive voice’ that the January ceasefire ‘failed’, without attributing responsibility to Israel (which TVNZ had done in some earlier reports up until 26 May). ‘Israel broke the ceasefire, it didn’t “fail”.’

i)  On referral, PSNA claimed, ‘TVNZ believes that even though 1News was sometimes confident enough to accurately attribute blame to Israel for breaking the ceasefire, it is under no obligation to report that responsibility in any subsequent broadcasts.’ Along with 1News’s failure to attribute deaths at aid sites to Israel (referring to its complaint about another broadcast), ‘[t]his amounts to a systematic bias to avoid attributing to Israel the conduct of a genocide, an expression which 1News refuses to use, simply because the ICJ has yet to issue a final determination about it, even though the UN has called it genocide.’

b)  1News accused Hamas of ‘killing around 1200 people’, which is ‘not correct’ as ‘[t]his number includes people killed by Israel forces under the Hannibal Directive, which, as far as we know, 1News has never reported on.’

i)  Responding to TVNZ’s decision on this point, PSNA said while TVNZ’s source suggests only 14 people were killed by the IDF, ‘other sources, such as Electronic Intifada, [suggest] that hundreds were killed this way on 7 October 2023. We suggest that the failure of 1News was not in trying to reconcile different number claims, but rather a failure to report on Israel’s use of the Directive at all, along with failure over the past two years to report and show documented use of Palestinians as human shields or prison torture. Viewers are being misled.’

c)  1News continues to refer to the Health Ministry in Gaza as ‘Hamas-run’, inviting viewers to question the veracity of casualty numbers (which PSNA has raised with TVNZ before).

d)  PSNA queried TVNZ’s source for the statement that Hamas had a ‘red line’ that it must ‘remain in charge of Gaza’, as a Drop Site News journalist had recently reported Hamas’s position was rather that it was ‘prepared to relinquish power in Gaza as part of a permanent ceasefire arrangement’. Further, the evidence provided by TVNZ did not support 1News’ claim of a ‘Hamas’ “red line”, in relation to its alleged determination to continue to control Gaza’. PSNA considered TVNZ provided ‘extensive evidence that Hamas’ determination to continue to control Gaza was qualified. This qualification was not broadcast on 2 July and is therefore not accurate and is misleading.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

Balance

[4]  TVNZ accepted ‘the Middle East conflict’ is a controversial issue to which the standard applied. It noted this item discussed a possible ceasefire and stated at the outset there had been no response from Hamas or Israel to the proposed deal thus far; these responses were reported as they came to hand. For example, 1News reported on 5 July 2025 – online³ and during 1News at 6pm – that Hamas had given a ‘positive’ response to the latest ceasefire proposal. No breach of the balance standard was identified.

Accuracy

1News accused Hamas of ‘killing around 1200 people’

[5]  TVNZ considered it correct to say, ‘a Hamas-led militant group launched a surprise attack in Israel in October 2023, killing around 1200 people and taking more than 250 hostage’:

• Human Rights Watch says, ‘in total, 1,195 people were killed: 736 Israeli civilians (including 36 children), 79 foreign nationals.’⁴
• Reuters reported a revised death toll of ‘around 1,200’ on 10 November 2023.⁵
• The Daily Telegraph reported ‘the Israeli military likely killed more than a dozen of its own citizens during the October 7 attacks, a United Nations investigation has alleged… UN investigators… concluded that at least 14 civilians… “were likely killed as a result of Israeli security forces fire”.’ TVNZ submitted, ‘[t]he number allegedly killed by the IDF (14) does not materially change the number of people killed by Hamas-led militants (around 1200).’ The 1News statement was correct and it was not necessary to discuss this issue for viewers’ proper understanding.

[6]  Responding to the referral, TVNZ said the Hannibal Directive was not material to the discussion about the number of people killed in the 7 October 2023 attacks, and how the number is reported (without mentioning the Hannibal Directive) is consistent with the Authority’s findings on this issue.⁶

[7]  Noting PSNA cited Electronic Intifada as an alternative source, TVNZ said Media Bias Fact Check (which was considered ‘widely used by reputable news organisations as a neutral tool for assessing bias’⁷) rated Electronic Intifada overall as ‘Left biased based on political editorial perspectives that favour a socialist perspective and strong pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli bias’ and ‘Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency regarding funding, one-sided reporting, and a false claim.’⁸

1News continues to refer to the Health Ministry in Gaza as ‘Hamas-run’

[8]  TVNZ said the term ‘Hamas-run’ is not pejorative and the Health Ministry figures are generally considered to be robust. It cited an article in Le Monde,⁹ which explains:

• ‘[T]he [death] count produced by the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health has been the subject of several controversies since the war began… But many experts and media organizations agree that the figures are reliable, and maybe even underestimated.’
• ‘Like most humanitarian organizations, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights considers the government source to be reliable,’ and ‘[t]he assessments carried out by the UN over the last 15 years are more or less similar to the ministry’s figures.’
• ‘The official figures are backed up by several independent analyses’ For example, ‘researchers at Johns-Hopkins University estimated that there is “no evidence of inflated excess mortality by the Gaza Ministry of Health,” and that “difficulties in obtaining accurate mortality figures should not be interpreted as intentionally erroneous data”.’

1News stated the January ceasefire ‘failed’ instead of attributing responsibility to Israel

[9]  TVNZ said it is correct to state the ceasefire failed and the reasons for this have been discussed extensively in other 1News reports. It was not required to repeat information about events that happened earlier in the year (the ceasefire failing in January 2025) or to provide all of that information alongside the sentence in the 2 July broadcast, which ‘simply summarises the ceasefire situation thus far’.

1News’ source for stating Hamas had a ‘red line’ that it must ‘remain in charge of Gaza’

[10]  TVNZ found no breach of the standard on this point. It said 1News advised:

a)  ‘It has long been Hamas’ position that it cannot yield its right to “resistance and its weapons” unless an “independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital” was established.’

b)  A BBC article stated Hamas had recently (3 August 2025) ‘reaffirmed’ this position.¹⁰

c)  ‘The assertion that Hamas has expressed willingness to disarm and end its resistance (which we can take as meaning “relinquish control of Gaza”) has been recently rejected by the group’, as expressed in an Al Jazeera article on 2 August 2025.¹¹

d)  ‘So, in essence the statement that a Hamas red line is to remain in control of Gaza is correct because it would not relinquish control until Israeli troops leave and then a Palestinian state is established. Therefore, it would have to remain in control after a ceasefire was agreed, under Hamas terms.’

e)  ‘This is a commonly understood analysis of the issue.’ For example, The National News Desk reported of the ceasefire negotiations¹²: ‘[an expert in foreign policy and military strategy], said Hamas wants an assurance that the war will end. … “And as you whittle down the number of hostages, the brinksmanship goes up in the sense that Hamas really wants an end to the war, with them retaining some sort of at least notional presence in Gaza, some sort of political control even if they give up military control,” he said. “And the Israelis, that’s unacceptable to the Israelis.”’

[11]  Responding to PSNA’s referral, TVNZ said ‘“red line” means a limit, point or boundary beyond which one may not go without incurring negative consequences.’ In the context of the relevant broadcast statement, it did not mean ‘the boundary cannot be crossed or cannot be “qualified”’. In any case, the reports and commentary cited in TVNZ’s decision make it clear that red lines are known and discussed in the media and ‘these are, a sovereign state of Palestine, a stop to Israeli occupation, and political control of Gaza by Hamas’.

The standards

[12]  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.¹³ The standard states:¹⁴

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.

[13]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹⁵ The standard states:¹⁶

• 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

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

[15]  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.¹⁷

[16]  As we have previously recognised, the Israel-Palestine conflict and reporting on significant developments in the conflict, including in relation to any possible ceasefire agreement, carries high public interest.¹⁸

[17]  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,¹⁹ 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 2 July 2025 broadcast are outlined below.

Balance

[18]  Consistent with our previous decisions,²⁰ we agree the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance – namely, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and negotiations working towards a ceasefire agreement. Accordingly, the standard applies.

[19]  However, we do not find any breach of the balance standard.

[20]  To the extent the complaint suggests bias – for example, 1News’ use of ‘the active voice’ and ‘the passive voice’, including failing to attribute the breakdown of the January ceasefire to Israel – the balance standard does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented without bias.

[21]  The standard is focused on the failure to present alternative perspectives on significant issues.²¹ This item presented a broad range of perspectives, including:

a)  a Palestinian woman, following the reporter’s statement, ‘Death and grief’s been a constant across the 634 days of war in Gaza. In the southern city of Khan Yunis, 44 more people were killed in Israeli airstrikes and shootings. At least eight women and six children among the dead’

b)  the brother of an Israeli hostage following the reporter’s reference to public pressure on the Israeli government to reach a deal

c)  the respective positions of Hamas and Israel in relation to ceasefire negotiations

d)  President Trump’s hopes of brokering an agreement, including his intention to be ‘very firm’ with Netanyahu about ‘ending the war in Gaza’.

[22]  The item concluded with the reporter stating, ‘For now, the Israeli offensive continues, making it clear any prospect of peace is still far from certain.’

[23]   The standard also allows for balance to be achieved over time. As noted in TVNZ’s decision, 1News subsequently reported Hamas’ ‘positive’ response to the ceasefire proposal on 5 July 2025 when that came to light. Further, as we have previously recognised,²² the Israel-Palestine conflict has been and continues to be covered extensively in a range of media, reducing the likelihood that any one item will misinform the audience.

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

Accuracy

[25]  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.

[26]  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.²³

[27]  Viewing the item as a whole, and in line with the reasons discussed above under balance, we do not consider the aspects complained about resulted in the item being materially inaccurate or misleading or would have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of this broadcast.

Use of ‘the passive voice’ and avoidance of attributing responsibility to Israel 

[28]  The item referenced Israel’s ongoing attacks and resulting casualties. For example, ‘In the southern city of Khan Yunis, 44 more people were killed in Israeli airstrikes and shootings. At least eight women and six children among the dead,’ and ‘For now, the Israeli offensive continues, making it clear any prospect of peace is still far from certain’. [our emphasis]

[29]  In the context of this item, which focused on efforts at the time of broadcast to negotiate an agreement for ceasefire and return of hostages, attributing responsibility for the breakdown of the January 2025 ceasefire was not a material point and would not have significantly affected viewers’ understanding of the focus of this item. The complainant acknowledged this has previously been reported by TVNZ. The broadcaster is not required in the interests of accuracy to repeat that information in every item discussing ceasefire negotiations.

1News was incorrect to state the 7 October 2023 attacks by Hamas killed ‘around 1200 people’ as that ignores deaths inflicted under the Hannibal Directive

[30]  It is not the Authority’s role to determine whether 1News ought to have reported on the Hannibal Directive²⁴ ‘over the past two years’, nor whether TVNZ ought to use the term ‘genocide’ (which did not appear in this item). As PSNA recognised in later submissions, the Code is not designed to address ‘systematic bias’ over time, as a complaint may only be made about a specific broadcast. Accordingly, we are limited to considering whether the figure of ‘around 1200’ in the 2 July broadcast was materially misleading.

[31]  The figure of ‘around 1200’ was referenced in a brief, introductory recap by the 1News presenter:

Israel’s military operation in Gaza started after Hamas-led militant groups launched a surprise attack in Israel in October 2023, killing around 1200 people and taking more than 250 hostage … Donald Trump’s announcement [that Israel has “agreed to the necessary conditions” for a 60-day ceasefire] comes just ahead of a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House…

[32]  The thrust of the main item was Trump’s (along with Qatar and Egypt’s) continued efforts to reach a ceasefire agreement. In this context, and in circumstances where TVNZ has provided several sources on which it relies as providing a reasonable basis for this figure, as well as explaining its view that the source cited by PSNA is not reliable, we do not consider the introduction would have materially misled viewers by not referring to the Hannibal Directive or any alleged impact of that on the 1200 figure.

1News continues to refer to the ‘Hamas-run’ Health Ministry

[33]  We note the concerns of PSNA and some others²⁵ regarding the use of the phrase ‘Hamas-run’ – including because, in PSNA’s view, it invites viewers to question the veracity of the figures.

[34]  However, to the extent the complaint suggests that use of the phrase displays bias (as PSNA does not appear to dispute the accuracy of the figures), that is not the focus of the standard, which requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy of material points. TVNZ has provided a range of sources on which it relies as demonstrating the figures are robust and widely reported and relied on by media. We do not consider it materially misleading nor a breach of the standard for TVNZ to attribute the source of casualty figures in the item’s introduction, referring to deaths in Gaza since October 2023. The single use of the phrase in the introduction would not have impacted the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole. The broadcaster also attributed sources of other information and viewpoints which viewers would reasonably expect from its reporting.

1News’ evidence does not support the statement Hamas had a ‘red line’ that it ‘must remain in charge of Gaza’

[35]  PSNA alleges that TVNZ’s sources for this statement demonstrate that Hamas’ ‘red line’, in this regard, is ‘qualified’, meaning the item was inaccurate and misleading by not reporting it as ‘qualified’.

[36]  The relevant phrase appeared in the reporter’s concluding statement:

[Trump has] urged Hamas to get on board for the good of the Middle East, as otherwise it will only get worse. A stall in peace negotiations needs this push from Trump, but getting Hamas to forego its red lines would be a challenge. It’s long pushed for a permanent ceasefire, the total withdrawal of Israeli forces, and to remain in charge of Gaza, all of which Israel has rejected before too, without all its hostages returned. For now, the Israeli offensive continues, making it clear any prospect of peace is still far from certain. [our emphasis]

[37]  TVNZ said reports and commentary indicated Hamas’ ‘red lines’ were known and discussed by media, including political control of Gaza by Hamas. We acknowledge the phrase ‘remain in charge of Gaza’ was ambiguous in that it did not necessarily signal the nature or parameters of Hamas’ wish to ‘remain in charge of Gaza’, nor whether that was political control, military or otherwise.

[38]  Nevertheless, it did not materially impact the thrust of the remainder of the item, which was focused on continued efforts to reach an agreement. Three days later, on 5 July 2025, 1News reported Hamas’ ‘positive’ response to the proposed deal. Developments in the conflict are ongoing and frequently reported, minimising the likelihood anyone would be materially misled by a single item or statement.²⁶ 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 and ceasefire negotiations around that time, and both sides’ positions, giving a feel for the complexity of this conflict.

[39]  In these circumstances, we find no harm arising from the statement that justifies regulatory intervention or restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

[40]  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
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 – 6 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. 2025-053
² Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082
³ Associated Press, “Hamas says it has given ‘positive’ response to Gaza ceasefire deal” 1News (online ed, 5 July 2025)
⁴ “I Can’t Erase All the Blood from My Mind: Palestinian Armed Groups’ October 7 Assault on Israel” Human Rights Watch (17 July 2024): ‘Agence France-Presse (AFP), which cross-referenced numerous data sources to verify the number of people killed, has assessed that 815 of a total of 1,195 people killed were civilians, including 79 foreign nationals. Among them were at least 282 women and 36 children. The Palestinian armed groups took hostage 251 civilians and Israeli security forces personnel and brought them back to Gaza following the attack…’
⁵ “Israel revises Hamas attack death toll to ‘around 1,200’” Reuters (online ed, November 10, 2023)
⁶ Citing Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-017 
⁷ PennState “MediaBiasFactCheck.com as a Tool for Lateral Reading” (July 10, 2024)
⁸ Media Bias Fact Check: Electronic Intifada – Bias and Credibility 
⁹ Citing Assma Maad “Why the Gaza Health Ministry's death count is considered reliable” Le Monde (online ed, October 13, 2024)
¹⁰ Thomas Mackintosh, “Hamas refuses to disarm until Palestinian state established” BBC News (online ed, 3 August 2025): ‘Hamas has reaffirmed that it will not agree to disarm unless a sovereign Palestinian state is established, in response to one of Israel’s key demands in talks about a ceasefire in Gaza.’
¹¹ “Hamas denies it expressed willingness to disarm, slams Witkoff’s Gaza trip” Al Jazeera (online ed, 2 August 2025): ‘Citing a recording of the talks, Israeli news outlet Haaretz reported that the US envoy told the families that Hamas said it was “prepared to be demilitarised”. But in a statement, Hamas said “the resistance and its weapons are a national and legal right as long as the [Israeli] occupation persists”. That right “cannot be relinquished until our full national rights are restored, foremost among them the establishment of a fully sovereign, independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital”, it said…’
¹² Cory Smith “Gaza ceasefire talks likely to continue after US, Israel pulled negotiating teams” The National News Desk (online ed, July 26, 2025)
¹³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁸ 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]
¹⁹ See also Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-053 and Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082
²⁰ For example, Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-017 at [21]; Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [11]; and Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [11].
²¹ 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]
²² 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]; and Lafraie and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-114 at [14]
²³ Guideline 6.2
²⁴ 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’: “Why did Israel deploy Hannibal Directive, allowing killing of own citizens?” Al Jazeera (online ed, 9 July 2024)
²⁵ See, for example, Noora Said, “Western media’s reference to the ‘Hamas-run’ Health Ministry is another dehumanizing tactic enabling Israel’s genocide” Mondoweiss (December 29, 2023); Letter from Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East to Global News Regina, “Stop calling it ‘Hamas-Run’; it’s the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza” The Media Accountability Project (June 16, 2025)
²⁶ For a similar finding see Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-027 at [8]