BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority has upheld an accuracy complaint about a ThreeNews item reporting, ‘The Israeli military has carried out three strikes on Gaza. It comes after Hamas attacked Israeli troops in the south of the Strip...’ An ITV reporter also stated in a pre-recorded update from Tel Aviv, ‘There were two problems today: a gun and rocket attack by Hamas on Israeli troops in southern Gaza… the Israelis chose to respond to those ceasefire violations...’ The complaint was that viewers could only have concluded that ‘Hamas had breached the ceasefire and Israel had responded’, when the item should have reported that was ‘according to’ the Israel Defense Forces, and Hamas had already said it had ‘no connection’ to the alleged attack. The Authority agreed that the lack of attribution or acknowledgement that Hamas disputed Israel’s allegations constituted a materially misleading omission. It was not satisfied the broadcaster demonstrated reasonable efforts to ensure its framing of the story was not misleading in this regard.

Upheld: Accuracy

Not Upheld: Balance

No Order

The broadcast 

[1]  An item on ThreeNews, broadcast on 29 October 2025, reported on the latest developments in Gaza. It comprised an introduction from the newsreader and a pre-recorded update from John Irvine, senior international correspondent for ITV. The broadcast in its entirety was as follows (statements complained about emphasised):

Newsreader:        Welcome back. The Israeli military has carried out three strikes on Gaza. It comes after Hamas attacked Israeli troops in the south of the Strip and delays in returning the remains of the last Israeli hostages. So, does it spell the end of the ceasefire? ITV’s John Irvine is in Tel Aviv.

Irvine:                    No, thankfully it doesn’t. The ceasefire is holding, but what we’ve seen tonight highlights, essentially, its fragility. There were two problems today: a gun and rocket attack by Hamas on Israeli troops in southern Gaza and ongoing delays by Hamas when it comes to returning the remains of dead hostages. Now the Israelis chose to respond to those ceasefire violations with airstrikes on Gaza tonight. There were several bombs dropped. Reports from the Strip suggest that at least seven people have been killed. But what we’re seeing underlines just how hard it is to maintain momentum in this process. And if things aren’t driven forward, they have a tendency to slide backwards, and that’s what we’ve seen today. The Americans are aware of this problem, you may recall they were– you know, there was a plethora of high-profile American visitors to Israel [naming some individuals]. But they can’t be here all the time. And as I say, if things aren’t driven forward, they have a tendency to slide backwards. And what we’re seeing tonight does not bode well, because this process is going to become even more fraught. It will become harder to maintain momentum. Phase two is supposed to involve demilitarisation and the deployment of an international force. That’s probably weeks, if not months, away. So, maintaining momentum is going to be difficult and momentum is all about... This process needs momentum if this ceasefire is not to become increasingly fragile.

The complaint

[2]  Steven Mountjoy complained the broadcast – in particular, the italicised statements above – breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

[3]  The complaint is that the broadcast should have attributed claims about Hamas’ attack on Israeli troops to the Israeli Defense Forces (the IDF) and reported that Hamas disputed the claims.

[4]  ‘As Gaza is occupied by the Israelis, and no independent media is permitted to enter, the story regarding the Hamas attack could only have come from the IDF. It therefore should have been reported as “according to the IDF” rather than verified fact.’ ‘There was nothing said within the report to indicate to the viewer that this version of what had happened had come solely from Israel/IDF.’

[5]  On referral, the complainant disagreed with the broadcaster that it is ‘widely known and understood by audiences’ that international media are barred from Gaza and information from the region is based on that provided by the Israeli military: ‘I disagree that this fact can be assumed to widely known and even if it is, many news organisations constantly remind their viewers that information cannot be independently verified by attributing sources when reporting from this region. The phrases “Hamas claimed”, “the IDF reported” or “the Hamas run Health Ministry figures” are frequently used by TV3 and other media outlets to clarify attribution.’

[6]  The complainant quoted the BBC’s reporting¹ as an example of how it attributed sources in this instance: ‘Israel’s defence minister accused Hamas of an attack in Gaza that killed an Israeli soldier, and of breaching the terms on returning deceased hostages’ bodies. Hamas said it had “no connection” to the attack and that Israel was trying to undermine the deal.’

[7]  Both aspects of this broadcast (ThreeNews’ intro and the ITV report) failed to say that Hamas had disputed the allegations, denying they had operatives in the area and ‘said they had “no connection” to the claimed attacks’ (citing the BBC article quoted above²). The complainant said this should have been reported.

[8]  ‘Given the context of this being the first major breach of the ceasefire, balance in the reporting of it was extremely important to give the viewer an accurate picture of which side was breaching the agreement. The viewer was told as fact, by the intro and John Irvine, that Hamas had breached the ceasefire and Israel had responded, whereas had the story been balanced it would have presented a very different picture.’

[9]  ‘The truth was that there were claims and counter-claims by both sides with no independent verification.’ At a minimum, the truth was ‘much more nuanced as reported in the BBC News article. Given this was the first significant breach of the ceasefire this accuracy was vitally important, and I believe the audience was materially misled.’

[10]  Responding to the broadcaster’s submission that, ‘In this particular instance, the fact that both sides accused one another of violating the fragile truce was widely reported internationally,’ the complainant said, ‘I fail to see how that excuses them from reporting only Israel’s version of events as fact, without attribution, while omitting Hamas’s version.’ In fact, Irvine of ITV said, ‘…the Israelis chose to respond to those ceasefire violations…’, ‘clearly attributing the ceasefire breach to Hamas’.

The broadcaster’s response

[11]  Sky Free Ltd (Sky Free) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons.

Accuracy

[12]  It is widely known and understood, by audiences watching reports on the region, that Israel has barred entry to the Gaza Strip for international journalists since the beginning of the current conflict in October 2023 and that ‘the information from the region is based on information provided by the Israeli military’.

[13]  John Irvine is a senior international correspondent for ITV News and has been reporting on Gaza since this conflict began. He routinely offers his commentary and analysis on the situation on the ground, and the Sky Free Standards Committee ‘maintains we are entitled to rely on the information he provides, as a respected expert on the region’.

[14]  Sky Free did not agree viewers were materially misled or that the omissions pointed to in the complaint ‘would have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the overall issue in the context of this extended conflict, with that context including the ban on international reporters in the region’.

Balance

[15]  The focus of the broadcast was the impact of the attacks on the fragile ceasefire and whether or not it was in jeopardy. The newsreader set up this focus, asking, ‘So, does it spell the end of the ceasefire?’

[16]  ‘The issue of conflict in this part of the world is long-standing and ongoing.’ Balance can be achieved within the period of current interest – which is ongoing for this issue. ‘Every side of the many issues about this complex conflict cannot reasonably be repeated or reported on every occasion.’

[17]  In this instance, the fact that both sides accused one another of violating the fragile truce was widely reported internationally. 

[18]  ThreeNews reports regularly on the conflict in Gaza, and viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the range of views given the extensive and ongoing coverage of this issue.

The standards

[19]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ The standard states:⁴

• 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.

[20]  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.⁵ The standard states:⁶

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.

[21]  The complaint, in essence, raises the same points under the accuracy and balance standards.

[22]  As outlined above, the two standards have different objectives and applications:⁷ the balance standard is concerned with the omission of significant viewpoints on controversial issues and, importantly, balance can be achieved over time; it takes into account the period of current interest and viewpoints presented across all coverage of a topic. A common-sense approach is taken in recognition of the wealth of coverage, information and news outlets readily available to the audience.

[23]  In contrast, accuracy is concerned with material points of fact and, in the case of a broadcast alleged to be misleading by omission, the omission of relevant factual information or background. Accuracy is not achieved over time, although a series of reporting by the broadcaster covering different aspects, or a correction made later after reporting was initially incorrect or misleading, may mitigate the risk of the audience being misled overall.⁸  

[24]  We consider the crux of this complaint concerns the omission of the fact that international media are barred from entering Gaza – meaning it was misleading not to attribute the source of the information reported (ie the IDF) – and the omission of the fact that Hamas had already said it had ‘no connection’ to the relevant attacks. While this could be interpreted as the IDF’s and Hamas’ viewpoints, in this instance we consider the key issue is whether the angle taken by the broadcaster – as the complainant expressed it, reporting Israel’s position as fact – and the failure to attribute the source of the information and/or mention Hamas’ position, resulted in the item being materially misleading by omission.⁹

[25]  Accordingly, we have focused our decision on the accuracy standard.

Our analysis

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

[27]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh 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.¹⁰

[28]  As we have previously recognised, the Israel-Palestine conflict and reporting on significant developments in the conflict, including in relation to the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, carries high public interest.¹¹ Equally, this means accuracy in reporting on this complex conflict is important, and expected. Viewers rely on reputable broadcasters to accurately present information about the latest developments in the conflict as it comes to hand – while recognising the challenges of verifying that information in some circumstances.

[29]  Weighing these considerations, we have reached the view that it was materially misleading to state as fact and without any qualification or caveat, that ‘Hamas attacked Israeli troops’ in breach of the ceasefire. We consider requiring the broadcaster to attribute this as Israel’s allegation, and/or to acknowledge Hamas disputed it, represents a reasonable restriction on the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. We explain our reasons below.

Accuracy

[30]  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. The second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead. To ‘mislead’ is defined as giving a wrong idea or impression of the facts.

[31]  The 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

[32]  The complainant’s key concern is that the item reported as fact that Hamas had breached the ceasefire and Israel had ‘responded’ to those breaches – when it should have made clear: that was the view of the IDF; and Hamas had said it had ‘no connection’ with the alleged attack on Israeli forces.

[33]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact. We are satisfied that the statements complained about constituted matters of fact, rather than being presented as analysis or opinion. None of the language qualified the statements or suggested this represented Irvine’s own view of the situation:

• ‘The Israeli military has carried out three strikes on Gaza. It comes after Hamas attacked Israeli troops in the south of the Strip…’ (ThreeNews newsreader)
• ‘There were two problems today: a gun and rocket attack by Hamas on Israeli troops in southern Gaza and ongoing delays by Hamas when it comes to returning the remains of dead hostages. Now the Israelis chose to respond to those ceasefire violations…’ (Irvine, ITV)

Were the statements misleading by omission?

[34]  The next question is whether these statements were misleading without attributing this as Israel’s view and/or reporting Hamas’ response.

[35]  The broadcaster has not disputed that the points raised by the complainant are correct. Instead, it maintained that: the audience knows information coming out of this region is based on information provided by the Israeli military, so it is not necessary to state in every case it is the view of the IDF; and that the points identified by the complainant would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding in the context of the extended conflict.

[36]  We do not agree. We have previously noted that in reporting on this conflict viewers reasonably expect broadcasters to attribute the source of information and viewpoints (as well as casualty figures).¹³ We have also previously found no breach of the standard where broadcasters have appropriately attributed views to Israel that were alleged by a complainant to be inaccurate;¹⁴ or not stated as fact that a certain party was responsible for an action in conflict, where responsibility had not been established.¹⁵

[37]  In the course of reporting on this highly sensitive and complex conflict, broadcasters routinely – as the complainant points out – attribute information and viewpoints to Israel, Hamas or key agencies in the region to ensure audiences are given enough information to make their own assessment of the situation, or made aware that information has not been independently verified.

[38]  We reviewed a range of national and international coverage around the time of the ThreeNews broadcast which either reported Israel had accused Hamas of breaching the ceasefire or reported both Israel’s and Hamas’ statements. Local coverage focused on ‘the dispute’ resulting in Israel’s latest strikes, as relating to the return of hostage remains. For example:

• ‘Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has instructed his military to immediately carry out powerful strikes on Gaza. Israel says a coffin handed over by Hamas does not contain the body of a specific deceased hostage, which would represent a violation of the ceasefire agreement.’¹⁶
• ‘Israel has carried out new strikes on Gaza after accusing Hamas of breaching the ceasefire deal. The dispute is over the return of human remains. Hamas says Israel is looking for excuses to resume fighting and has hindered efforts to return bodies.’¹⁷
• ‘Netanyahu ordered the military to carry out intense strikes on the Gaza Strip, after accusing Hamas of violating the US-brokered ceasefire. Minutes later, Hamas said it would delay handing over the remains of another hostage under the terms of the truce deal over what it called Israel’s truce “violations”.’¹⁸

[39]  International coverage dated 28 October 2025 and up to the afternoon of 29 October 2025 (NZST) reported:

• ‘Israeli planes have launched strikes on Gaza City, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accusing militant group Hamas of violating the ceasefire […] The statement did not give a specific reason for the attacks, but an Israeli military official said Hamas had violated the ceasefire by carrying out an attack against Israeli forces in an area of the enclave that was under Israeli control […] Both sides have accused each other of violations of the ceasefire […] On Tuesday, Hamas denied responsibility for an attack on Israeli forces in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, which prompted Israel to launch attacks in Gaza. The militant Palestinian group also said in a statement that it remained committed to the US-brokered ceasefire deal in Gaza.’¹⁹
• ‘The Israeli military has killed at least 20 Palestinians in attacks across Gaza after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered “powerful” strikes following an exchange of gunfire in southern Rafah, during which one Israeli soldier was wounded. Hamas’s armed wing […] accused Israel of violating the truce and said it would postpone the planned handover of the body of a missing captive […] Hamas has denied any involvement in the attack in Rafah […] The statement [from Netanyahu’s office] did not give a specific reason for the attacks, but it was followed by a statement from Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, who blamed Hamas for the attack in Rafah […]’²⁰

[40]  For these reasons, we agree with the complainant that it was misleading for the broadcast to present Israel’s position and justifications for the strikes as unqualified fact.

Was the item materially misleading?

[41]  The broadcaster said viewers would not have been materially misled, or their understanding significantly impacted, by the failure to attribute the factual statements as Israel’s or the IDF’s views, or to include Hamas’ response. Again, we do not agree.

[42]  We do not think all or most viewers would know, or assume, that all reporting from the region is based on the Israeli military’s information. Particularly when, as in this case, unqualified statements of fact were made by both the ThreeNews newsreader and the ITV reporter without conveying any uncertainty or attributing differing positions. We consider viewers’ understanding of the story would have been materially altered, as Hamas’ alleged attacks were presented as the first of two justifications given for Israel’s strikes and its position that Hamas had breached the ceasefire – but viewers were not then given sufficient information or qualifiers to enable them to assess those allegations. In the complainant’s words, the ‘report could only lead the viewer to the conclusion that Hamas had breached the ceasefire and Israel had responded […] The truth was that there were claims and counter-claims by both sides with no independent verification. Had this been reported it would have presented a very different picture […].’

Did the broadcaster make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy?

[43]  Having concluded the item was materially misleading, the next question is whether the broadcaster nevertheless made reasonable efforts to ensure it did not mislead.

[44]  The assessment of whether the broadcaster has made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy includes consideration of the following, where relevant:²¹

• the source of material broadcast (eg a reputable organisation or an authoritative expert)
• whether the broadcast was live or pre-recorded
• whether there was some obvious reason to question the accuracy of the programme content before it was broadcast
• whether the broadcaster sought and/or presented comment, clarification or input from any relevant person or organisation
• the extent to which the issue of accuracy was reasonably capable of being determined by the broadcaster
• the effect of any subsequent or follow-up coverage (eg where information has been updated or corrected as part of a developing story)
• the level of the broadcaster’s editorial control over the content.

[45]  We acknowledge Sky Free’s position that it was reasonable for it to rely on information supplied by ITV, and Irvine as a respected senior international correspondent who has been reporting on Gaza since the current phase of the conflict began. We recognise that New Zealand broadcasters commonly rely on international news outlets in the case of developing overseas stories, when they do not have journalists available on the ground reporting first-hand.²²

[46]  However, the source of the material is only one factor in assessing whether reasonable efforts have been made. The guideline identifies other key considerations including the level of the broadcaster’s editorial control over the content, and whether there was an obvious reason to question, or seek further clarification or comment on the information.

[47]  We have previously given guidance to broadcasters about ensuring due care is taken in framing introductions, including where the main item has been pre-recorded by an overseas outlet, so as not to overstate the facts or ‘adopt without question’ a particular angle.²³

[48]  It ought also to be an obvious question, in our view, in the context of any report on developments in this conflict, whether there’s a reasonable basis to state the information as fact or whether in the interests of accuracy it should be attributed, or reported alongside ‘comment, clarification or input’ from a relevant person or organisation, or an alternative version of events.

[49]  We requested further comments from Sky Free regarding whether ThreeNews’ introduction to the item was based only on Irvine’s piece, or whether other sources or fact-checking were relied on in crafting the introduction. Sky Free provided comment from the ThreeNews team, advising:

Given the passage of time, we cannot confirm exactly which other sources we may have checked for that intro. However, it is standard practice for us to fact check off other sources.

ITV is an internationally respected news organisation and as our syndication partner we trust their independence and editorial judgement. Accordingly, we would also trust the ITV intro, which matched John Irvine’s report.

[50]  Asked whether that meant the introduction text was also supplied by ITV, ThreeNews said:

We use the supplied ITV version as the basis for an intro, and then will change to suit our style and if we gather any additional facts etc. How much we rewrite it will depend on a number of these factors. In general, we would usually trust the basic facts as they set them out, while endeavouring to verify them against other sources.

[51]  It is evident ThreeNews retained editorial control over the introduction, even if the text was initially supplied by ITV. ThreeNews also advises it is standard practice to fact-check such an introduction. However, it is unable to give details of any fact-checking done on this occasion to verify the information. In other media coverage leading up to the broadcast, it seems sufficiently clear Israel had accused Hamas of breaching the ceasefire, due to the alleged attacks on Israeli troops and/or the dispute over the return over hostage remains, and that Hamas had responded to those allegations (as noted in paragraphs [38]-[39] above).

[52]  We consider it should have been straightforward to either attribute the views or accusations of ceasefire breaches by Hamas to Israel/the IDF, or acknowledge Hamas’ position in the ThreeNews introduction – so that Israel’s position was not stated as unqualified fact. We are not persuaded the broadcaster exercised sufficient care in preparing the strong angle of the introduction to the story, having regard to other coverage.

[53]  Accordingly, we find the broadcaster has not demonstrated reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy.

Conclusion 

[54]  We therefore uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard. Requiring the broadcaster to attribute the viewpoints of Israel and/or Hamas in the introduction, over which it had editorial control, in our view represents a reasonable and justified limit on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, to enable viewers to assess the merits for themselves. This decision reinforces – as we have expressed in a number of decisions – the importance of accuracy in reporting on this complex conflict and the expectations of the audience in this regard.

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast of an item on ThreeNews by Sky Free Ltd on 29 October 2025 breached Standard 6 (Accuracy) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. 

[55]  Having upheld part of the complaint, we may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We do not consider any order is warranted in this case. Publication of our decision is sufficient to publicly notify and correct the breach of the accuracy standard, and to give guidance and set clear expectations for Sky Free and other broadcasters to ensure the framing of stories does not mislead the public.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
22 April 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Mountjoy’s original complaint – 31 October 2025

2  Sky Free’s decision – 24 November 2025

3  Mountjoy’s referral to the Authority (incl. copy of BBC article relied on) – 
20 December 2025

4  Sky Free’s confirmation of no further comments – 4 March 2026

5  Sky Free’s further comments requested by the Authority regarding reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy – 30 March 2026

¹ David Gritten and Rushdi Abualouf, “Israeli strikes in Gaza kill 104, health ministry says, after Hamas accused of killing soldier” BBC (online ed, 30 October 2025)
² As above
³ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ For more discussion comparing these two standards, see John Burrows, External Review of Decisions 2021 – Balance Standard, at pages 10-11
⁸ See, for example, Andrews and Murray and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-153 concerning a number of bulletins on RNZ’s Morning Report. The Authority did not uphold two accuracy complaints, finding although the morning bulletins were misleading and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of those reports, a later news bulletin during Midday Report was sufficient to clarify and correct the misleading impression created earlier.
⁹ For a similar finding (focusing decision on the accuracy standard as opposed to the balance standard), see Hart and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-002 at [8]
¹⁰ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹¹ For example, see Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-027 at [8]
¹² Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹³ Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082 at [22]
¹⁴ Farr and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-009
¹⁵ O’Brien and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-059
¹⁶ “7am news bulletin” HeraldNow (online ed, 29 October 2025)
¹⁷ “News in 90 Seconds” 1News (online ed, 29 October 2025)
¹⁸ “Gaza civil defence says Israel launched at least three air strikes on territory” RNZ (online ed, 7.18am 29 October 2025)
¹⁹ Reuters/AP, “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu orders ‘powerful’ strikes in Gaza” ABC (online ed, posted Wed 29 Oct 2025 at 6.05am, updated Wed 29 Oct 2025 at 1.26pm)
²⁰ Al Jazeera Staff and News Agencies, “Israel kills 20 in Gaza attacks, Hamas delays handover of captive’s remains” Al Jazeera (online ed, 28 October 2025)
²¹ Guideline 6.3: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²² For example, see Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-002 at [32]
²³ As above, at [31]