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 an RNZ news bulletin. The item briefly reported on the BBC’s apology concerning a live broadcast of music group Bob Vylan chanting ‘death, death to the IDF’, saying the apology described the chants as ‘antisemitic’. The complainant said the use of ‘antisemitic’ to describe the chants was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. Noting the statement was clearly attributed to the BBC and the context behind its statement was available to the audience, the Authority found the audience had the information needed to draw their own inferences and conclusions and would not be misled. The balance and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached.   

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  A morning news bulletin, broadcast on RNZ National on 4 July 2025, included a report about the BBC’s apology for not editing a livestream of punk rap group Bob Vylan chanting ‘death, death to the IDF (Israel Defense Forces)’.

[2]  The report stated:

The BBC has announced it will no longer broadcast or stream live any music gig deemed high-risk after it was widely criticised for showing the punk-rap duo Bob Vylan chanting against the Israeli military. Britain's national broadcaster had already said it was a mistake not to cut Bob Vylan’s performance from the live feed of Glastonbury Festival last weekend, as it included on-stage chants of ‘death, death to the IDF’. It was in reference to the Israel Defense Forces’ war in the Palestinian territory of Gaza. The BBC has published an apology, describing the chants as antisemitic, and saying it's taking action, including the policy change on live broadcasts of certain musical acts.  

The complaint

[3]  Ong Su-Wuen complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand because:

• ‘The allegation that the chant, and therefore by implication the group [Bob Vylan], is [antisemitic] is wholly incorrect.’
• ‘Although Bob Vylan may be guilty of calling for violence, it is completely wrong to imply that the IDF is in fact the same as the Jewish race. Neither Israel or the IDF is the same as the Jewish race...’
• ‘If they had said “death to the Lord’s Resistance Army”, would that be anti-Christian? Yet a different standard seems to apply to any criticism of Israel, and now the IDF.”
• ‘RNZ cannot claim that they are “just reporting” the news. RNZ has a responsibility to rebut any inaccurate news item by stating what the facts are and not just parrot falsehoods over and over again.’

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘… in the space of a single story in a news bulletin, broadcasters are not required to present every significant viewpoint on every issue.’
• ‘The requirements of the Accuracy standard are satisfied through proper attribution of a quote …  Whether or not chanting “Death to the IDF” is [antisemitic] was not the main point of the story, so the quote cannot be considered materially misleading.’
• The balance standard ‘allows for a range of views to be presented over the period of interest in a story or issue. There is ongoing debate about claims of [antisemitism] in the context of Israel’s attacks on Gaza and its other neighbours’.

The standards

[5]  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.¹ The standard states:²

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.

[6]  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.

[7]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁵ The standard states:⁶

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

[8]  We consider the accuracy standard most relevant to the concerns raised by the complainant. However, the balance and fairness standards are briefly addressed at paragraph [17].

Our analysis

[9]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[10]  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.⁷

Accuracy

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

[12]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁸

[13]  The complainant has alleged the broadcast was misleading because it reported BBC’s apology – which described the chants as antisemitic –  without ‘stating what the facts are’, or contextualising or challenging this characterisation.

[14]  We acknowledge the complainant’s concerns and have previously upheld complaints where events were misleadingly represented as ‘antisemitic’, recognising the importance of due care and caution in reporting on the Gaza conflict and related topics.[9] However, our role is to assess whether the broadcast was inaccurate or likely to mislead the audience. In this case, we consider it was not:

a)  The item did not state as fact the Bob Vylan chant was antisemitic. It reported a statement of the BBC.¹⁰

b)  The statement was clearly attributed to the BBC.

c)  The context behind the BBC’s statement (ie the wording of Bob Vylan’s chants) was also apparent from the broadcast and widely covered in other media reports at the time.¹¹

[15]  This is not a situation where the audience was likely to be misled about any factual matter. RNZ’s audience had the information needed to draw their own inferences and conclusions about Bob Vylan’s chants (as the complainant has done).    

[16]  In these circumstances, we have identified no harm meriting our intervention in the broadcaster’s exercise of its right to freedom of expression and do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.  

Other standards

[17]  The balance and fairness standards were not breached or did not apply:

a)  Balance: The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes that ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.¹² We have previously recognised brief news reports generally do not constitute a ‘discussion’ of a relevant issue for the purposes of the standard.¹³ This broadcast was a very brief (approximately 45-second) report on BBC’s apology. It was not a discussion to which the balance standard might apply.

b)  Fairness: This standard is concerned with the unfair treatment of organisations or individuals featured in broadcasts. It does not address whether issues or facts have been ‘fairly’ conveyed. While mischaracterisation of Bob Vylan’s chant might reflect unfairly on the Bob Vylan band members, the fairness complaint does not raise any issues which are not addressed under accuracy and, for the reasons set out under accuracy, we consider the broadcast is not unfair to Bob Vylan.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
21 October 2025

Appendix

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

1  Ong’s original complaint – 24 July 2025

2  RNZ’s decision – 31 July 2025

3  Ong’s referral to the Authority – 20 August 2025

4  RNZ’s response to the referral – 1 September 2025

5  Ong’s further comments – 8 September 2025

6 RNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 11 September 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁶ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Guideline 6.2
⁹ See Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-002 and Jervis & Robertson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-103
¹⁰ For a similar finding, see Farr and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-009
¹¹ Heather Carrick “What has the BBC said about Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set? New update amid row over anti-IDF chants – read the statement in full” National World (online ed, 30 June 2025); Kieran Galpin “BBC statement in full as Bobby Vylan defends Glastonbury chant with ‘I said what I said” The Tab (online ed, July 2025); and Naman Ramachandran “BBC Issues Apology Over ‘High Risk’ Bob Vylan’s controversial Glastonbury Performance” Variety (online ed, 3 July 2025)   
¹² Guideline 5.1
¹³ See Watkin and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-041 at [10]; Wilson and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2023-045 at [10]; and Jervis & Robertson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-103 at [29]