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 under the offensive and disturbing content, balance and accuracy standards about a segment of The Watermelon Report that said Jesus Christ was ‘a Palestinian’ and ‘a Palestinian refugee’. The Authority found the segment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience in the context of audience expectations of The Watermelon Report and the host. The broadcaster’s proactive broadcast of a clarification indicating the claim about Jesus was the presenter’s view and was ‘not universally supported’ addressed any concerns under the accuracy standard. The balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  On 26 December 2024 at 8:30pm, the host of The Watermelon Report presented an origin story of Jesus Christ as a Palestinian refugee, in the context of Christmas.

[2]  The host introduced the segment as follows:

Kia ora and salaam. This is [host’s name] from The Watermelon Report on OAR FM sowing the seeds of justice. Today, I'll be giving you some information on relating to Christmas. And as you prepare for Christmas and do your shopping for Christmas, I want you to remember that Jesus was a Palestinian. So, I'll be reading you a bit of information on that. So yeah, remember that Christ was a Palestinian refugee.

[3]  With the theme of Christ as a Palestinian, the host moved through the following topics:

a)  passages about Christ from the Quran

b)  the disruption of Israel’s war on Palestine’s Christmas rituals

c)  Christ’s origins and background in Bethlehem

d)  her personal experiences celebrating Christmas in Bethlehem

e)  the importance of Christmas to Palestine and Palestinians.

[4]  During the segment the host quoted Palestinian pastors, a Professor of Iranian Studies, and a historian and theologian. One quote said: ‘Jesus was born on our side of the wall, Palestinian pastor [Pastor’s name] told Al Jazeera’.

The complaint

[5]  Charlie Placard complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. The complainant provided detailed submissions and background to his complaint. His complaint is summarised under each standard as follows:

Offensive and disturbing content

[6]  The complainant said, in relation to this standard:

a)  The claim of Christ being a Palestinian risk offending the religious sensibilities of Christians, Jews, and Muslims by ‘attributing a modern political identity to a figure sacred to these faiths’.

b)  It ‘disregards the historical understanding of Jesus’ life and cultural context, flying in the face of the deeply held beliefs of many religious communities’ and does so ‘flippantly, presenting the claim as fact without any effort to provide source material or evidence’.

c)  ‘The provocative framing of Jesus’ identity’, particularly in statements like ‘Jesus was born on our side of the wall,’ is inflammatory and in poor taste.

Balance

[7]  The complainant said, in relation to this standard:

a)  The statement is controversial and ‘intersects with the highly sensitive and on-going issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a topic of significant importance’.

b)  ‘…I think it is clear [the Host’s] broadcast amounts to a “discussion”.’

c)  The broadcast did not present other perspectives or provide the necessary historical and theological context to counterbalance the claim and ‘the verifiably untrue nature of the claim that “Jesus was a Palestinian” means there is no substantial debate about this particular perspective in media coverage’.

Accuracy

[8]  The complainant said, in relation to this standard:

a)  ‘The claim that Jesus was a “Palestinian” is historically inaccurate and misleading. Jesus was a historical figure who lived in first-century Judea under Roman rule. The term “Palestinian” was not used during his time; it became associated with the region only … in the second century … Jesus’ life predates the use of the word “Palestine” by several decades.’

b)  ‘[While] the region was named “Syria Palaestina” in the second century, this was a geographic designation, not an ethnic or national identity.’

c)  There are no reputable sources to support the claim Jesus was Palestinian.

d)  It was not obvious the programme was presented from a Palestinian perspective. Most listeners would not understand the ‘watermelon’ reference as a symbol of Palestinian protest.

e)  ‘While opinions and individual interpretations are valid, they cannot be passed off as historical facts’.

OAR’s broadcast statement

[9]  The complainant said OAR’s subsequent broadcast statement seemed ‘perfunctory’.

[10]  The problem was not just how the host ‘failed to mention that her claims weren’t universally supported’. The problem was also how ‘the nature of the programme was unclear to general listeners and ‘that the “Jesus was a Palestinian” claim is factually inaccurate’ but was presented as ‘objective fact’.

[11]  ‘The absence of a public acknowledgement of these facts, and a proper correction in response’ has led to this complaint.

The broadcaster’s response

[12]  The Hills Radio Trust trading as Otago Access Radio FM (OAR) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Offensive and disturbing content

[13]  The broadcaster said, in relation to this standard:

a)  ‘It is very widely known that the watermelon has been used as a pro-Palestinian symbol of protest … the content was presented from a pro-Palestinian perspective and largely focused on the ongoing conflict in the region …’.

b)  ‘The Watermelon Report can be seen as a broadcast for the interests of the Palestinian and Muslim minorities.’

c)  ‘General listeners to this station, and the intended audience for The Watermelon Report, could reasonably be expected to understand that the programme is the expression of a minority voice in our community.’

d)  Audience expectations for this broadcast ‘should be for robust and sometimes confronting views on history and current affairs’.

Balance

[14]  The broadcaster said, in relation to this standard:

a)  The standard does not appear intended to ‘address disputes over ancient history’.

b)  ‘The Watermelon Report is a weekly programme clearly focused on a particular perspective – that of the Palestinian community here in Dunedin and those Palestinians impacted by an extensively reported conflict.’

c)  ‘[Many] articles exploring this topic are available at the fingers of anyone with access to the Internet … a diversity of perspectives, faiths and beliefs are available to the listener.’

Accuracy

[15]  The broadcaster said, in relation to this standard:

a)  There is clear debate around the claim that Jesus was a Palestinian and how the word Palestinian is defined in this context.

b)  To determine the accuracy of the statement ‘Jesus was a Palestinian’ would be to ‘decide on a question that historians and commentators the world over cannot agree on’.

c)  While accepting ‘the host presented the statement in such a manner as to present it as fact’, listeners would reasonably assume the statement was ‘a strongly held opinion of the programme host, and that its basis lay in an historical perspective that is not shared by all’.

d)  The host of The Watermelon Report assured OAR that ‘within her religious education and within her community, the belief that Jesus was a Palestinian is firmly held’. She is entitled to give expression to that belief.

e)  ‘Given the wider debate, with different scholarly interpretations of the definition of Palestinian and whether it is correct or otherwise to call Jesus a Palestinian’, no material error of fact was made.

[16]  OAR found no breaches of the standards identified, but, in response to the complaint, acknowledged the statement ‘would have been confronting to some listeners in the absence of acknowledgement by the host that it is a view that is not universally shared’. It broadcasted the following statement at the start of the 6 February 2025 edition of The Watermelon Report:

‘In the Thursday 26 December 2024 edition of the following programme, The Watermelon Report, the programme host made several references to Jesus Christ as a Palestinian. We acknowledge that this claim is not universally supported, and that some listeners may have found it is confronting. The views expressed in this programme are the presenter’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of OAR FM staff, management or the Hills Radio Trust.’

The standards

[17]  The purpose of the offensive and disturbing content standard (Standard 1) is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.¹ The standard states:²

Broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:

• the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and
• the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

[18]  The purpose of the balance standard (Standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience the arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.³ The standard states:⁴

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.

[19]  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).

[20]  Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[21]  We consider the offensive and disturbing content and accuracy standards most applicable to the complainant’s concerns and have focused our response on these standards. However, the balance standard is addressed briefly at paragraph [35].

Our analysis

[22]  We have listened to 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.⁷

[24]  The Authority has previously recognised ‘the right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in the way that they choose, so long as standards are maintained’.⁸ In a diverse society such as New Zealand, people communicate differently and there is value in hearing the authentic voice and perspectives of different groups within our society.  

[25]  While we acknowledge the comments about Christ may be offensive to some, the Authority is charged with achieving an appropriate balance between the important right to freedom of expression and the avoidance of harm.

[26]  In this case, we do not consider any harm alleged by the complainant reached a level which would justify limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. We expand on the reasons for this finding below.

Offensive and disturbing content 

[27]  Context is crucial in assessing potential harm under the offensive and disturbing content standard. Relevant context in this case includes:

a)  OAR is an independent not-for-profit Access Media station, which provides podcasts and radio programmes for and by their local community in Ōtepoti Dunedin. OAR provides the facilities, training and support for individuals and groups to make their own podcasts and radio shows, acting as a voice for diverse communities and local stories overlooked by mainstream media.⁹

b)  The Watermelon Report is a weekly scheduled evening report by the host who provides updates about her home country, Palestine.¹⁰

c)  The host’s tone was matter-of-fact and moderate throughout.

[28]  The Watermelon Report, as a weekly scheduled segment by the host, has an established target audience and the broadcast is within audience expectations for the programme.

[29]  We consider the nature of the programme, and perspective from which it was offered, would be apparent to listeners whether or not they understood the symbolism of the watermelon. The presenter’s reflections on Jesus’s connection to Palestine may not be commonly heard on New Zealand radio, but can be found in overseas media, such as Al Jazeera and Arab America.¹¹ Those who disagree with the presenter can turn the programme off and disregard comments with which they disagree, on the understanding different people and cultures will have differing perspectives on religious and historical matters. Others may find the presenter’s perspective, and the implicit invitation to view Jesus as a refugee when reflecting on current events, thought-provoking – and this latter concept is not new to Christianity.¹²

[30]  The broadcast’s discussion of Jesus addressed a matter on which strong and conflicting positions were possible. However, in the context, any offence and consequent harm caused by the presenter’s comments was not at a level making them wholly inappropriate for broadcast. The comments were unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience in the context of audience expectations of The Watermelon Report and this host.

Accuracy  

[31]  This standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs, and factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not materially mislead the audience.

[32]  We note the complainant’s historical arguments in support of the position Jesus could not be ‘a Palestinian’ and the broadcaster’s opposing arguments, including regarding the different ways ‘Palestinian’ might be interpreted in the context. However, it is not the Authority’s role to determine the accuracy of comments about the origins of Jesus. We also see no need for intervention by the Authority to remedy any potentially misleading impact in this case given OAR’s proactive broadcast of a subsequent clarification.

[33]  The subsequent clarification indicated the ‘claim’ about Jesus was the presenter’s view and was ‘not universally supported’. While the complainant may have preferred an acknowledgement it was ‘factually inaccurate’ to describe Jesus as a Palestinian, we are not in a position to make such a determination or requirement.

[34]  The broadcasting standards regime provides a means of recourse when broadcasters fail to respond to complaints in a satisfactory manner. In this situation, we consider OAR’s decision and proactive issue of a subsequent clarification adequately addressed any concerns raised under this standard.

Balance

[35]  The balance standard¹³ only applies when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed. The Authority has previously found while a ‘historic event may be of great public interest at the time and may continue to be of historical interest, the later discussion or analysis of such an event will not necessarily be considered a controversial issue of public importance’.¹⁴ As the complainant suggests, the subject of the complaint may ‘intersect’ with current events in Israel and Palestine. However, the additional perspectives the complainant wished to see related to the origins of someone the complainant describes as ‘a historical figure who lived in first-century Judea under Roman rule’. In these circumstances, the balance standard does not apply.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Aroha Beck
Acting Chair
9 June 2025

Appendix

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

1  Placard’s original complaint – 9 January 2025

2  Otago Access Radio FM’s decision – 29 January 2025

3  Placard’s response to OAR’s decision – 3 February 2025

4  OAR’s response to Placard's comments – 4 February 2025

5  Placard’s referral to the Authority – 20 February 2025

6  OAR’s further comments – 4 March 2025

7  Placard’s confirmation of no further comments – 24 March 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
² Standard 1, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ See Barclay and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-003 at [12]; and Lough and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2017-080 at [11]
⁹ OAR FM Dunedin “Who are we?” (2025) OAR FM Te Reo Iriraki Putaka Ki Ōtepoti <oar.org.nz>
¹⁰ OAR FM Dunedin “The Watermelon Report” (2025) OAR FM Te Reo Iriraki Putaka Ki Ōtepoti <oar.org.nz/shows.the-watermelon-report/>
¹¹ See, for example, Hamid Dabashi "Remember: Christ was a Palestinian refugee" Al Jazeera (online ed, 25 December 2018); John Mason "If Jesus Were Alive Today - Would he be a Judean Jew, Palestinian Christian, Muslim, Arab, or Something Else?" Arab America (online ed, 5 April 2024),
¹² See, for example, Neil Rees "When Jesus himself was a refugee from the holy land" Christian Today (online ed, 29 December 2023)
¹³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁴ See Grieve & Ryburn and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-104 at [20]