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 balance and accuracy standards about an RNZ news bulletin reporting comments by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of the Republic of Türkiye. Erdoğan accused Israel of ‘aim[ing] to sabotage’ nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran through its airstrikes on Iran on 13 June 2025. The complainant alleged Erdoğan’s comments were untrue and that the broadcast was misleading by not detailing ‘the true sequence of events leading to Israel's attack on Iran’. The Authority found the brief, straightforward item did not amount to a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the balance standard. It also found Erdoğan’s comments were analysis, comment, or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply, and the broadcast was not inaccurate or misleading by omission.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) National 5am news bulletin on 22 June 2025 reported accusations made by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of the Republic of Türkiye, against Israel. The item, in full, stated:

Newsreader:                          Turkey has accused Israel of dragging the Middle East towards total disaster. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was speaking in Istanbul at a gathering of his counterparts from dozens of Muslim-majority countries. He said Israel was the barrier to peace in the region. 

Erdoğan [translated]:           With all these attacks, Benjamin Netanyahu's government has once again proven that it is the biggest obstacle before regional peace. I curse the attacks conducted by Israel on Iran in the strongest way. With its attacks on June the 13th, the Netanyahu government has actually aimed to sabotage the negotiation process. What has been experienced also shows that Netanyahu and his network of murder does not want any issue to be resolved through diplomatic means. 

Newsreader:                          Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Tehran couldn't consider negotiations with the United States while it remained under bombardment.

The complaint

[2]  Neville Watkin complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards because Erdoğan’s comments were allegedly untrue and ‘should have been … reported as such’:

• ‘The item about Turkey's allegation, that Israel was effectively sabotaging any nuclear deal between the United States and Iran, left the listener with the unbalanced impression that the allegation was true’ since ‘there was no attempt to remind the listener of the true sequence of events leading to Israel's attack on Iran.’
• ‘The talks between Iran and the US which commenced on 12 April 2025 had broken down by 11 June. On 12 June the IAEA declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations, and Israel launched its pre-emptive strikes the following day. At least some attempt on the part of RNZ to summarise these known facts would have left the listener with a more accurate memory of the events in question.’
• Although ‘RNZ was reporting an opinion of a Turkish spokesperson’, ‘the opinion was not balanced by any readily available contradictory facts’. The 6am news bulletin ‘did not revisit or mention the item at all, so RNZ failed to take any reasonable opportunity to provide balance’.
• ‘…RNZ knew, or ought to have known, that the opinion it broadcast contained blatant factual inaccuracies and allegations which were highly contentious, and RNZ made no attempt to balance the item by presenting the relevant facts, or by offering any alternative opinion’.

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  RNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘The point of the story [was] to capture the news of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan portraying Israel as an aggressor among its Middle Eastern neighbours.’ Erdoğan’s comments were his opinion and ‘properly attributed as part of the broadcast’.
• ‘…the timeline of peace negotiations between the USA and Iran is readily available and quite widely known.’
• ‘RNZ’s audience is also aware that political speech is not always factually accurate. But the audio clip is an accurate record of Erdoğan’s speech, about which the audience can form its own view.’

The standards

[4]  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.

[5]  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.

Our analysis

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

[7]  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.⁵

Balance

[8]  As outlined at [4], the balance standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to reflect ‘significant viewpoints’ when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are ‘discussed’ in news and current affairs programmes.

[9]  The Authority rarely upholds complaints under the balance standard about short news reports.  In previous decisions and our Complaints that are unlikely to succeed guidance, the Authority has recognised the brevity of such broadcasts means they typically do not constitute a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard.⁶

[10]  The broadcast in question was not a ‘discussion’ of a relevant issue. It was a straightforward report, lasting less than one minute, on comments made by President Erdoğan about Israeli airstrikes in Iran and their impact on nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran. The balance standard therefore does not apply. 

[11]  In any event, the complaint is focused more on the omission of factual context than the omission of identified perspectives on an issue.⁷ We therefore consider the complaint more appropriately addressed under the accuracy standard.

Accuracy

[12]  The complainant states:

• it was untrue for Erdoğan to suggest Israel was effectively sabotaging any nuclear deal between the United States and Iran
• inclusion of the ‘true sequence of events leading to Israel's attack on Iran’ would have left listeners with a more accurate understanding of events.

[13]  Each issue is separately addressed below.

Erdoğan’s ‘sabotage’ statement

[14]  Guideline 6.1 stipulates the accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. However, broadcasters must still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to facts referred to or on which the analysis, comment or opinion is based.

[15]  The comments alleged to be ‘untrue’ were those of the Turkish President, which were clearly distinguishable as his analysis or opinion regarding Israel’s motivations for attacking Iran – therefore, the accuracy standard does not apply.⁸

[16]  Erdoğan’s opinion was not materially misleading with respect to facts referred to or on which the opinion was based: 

a)  Facts referred to: The complainant disagrees with Erdoğan’s opinion and claims it ‘contained blatant factual inaccuracies’ but did not identify any incorrect facts Erdoğan referred to in expressing his opinion.

b)  Facts on which opinion based: Erdoğan’s repeated reference to Israel’s attacks means listeners are likely to understand those attacks represented the factual basis for his opinion:

i)  ‘With all these attacks, Benjamin Netanyahu's government has once again proven that it is the biggest obstacle before regional peace.’

ii)  ‘With its attacks on June the 13th, the Netanyahu government has actually aimed to sabotage the negotiation process.’  

[17]  Listeners could draw their own inferences and conclusions about the merits of Erdoğan’s comments, which clearly presented only one political leader’s (brief) perspective on an international conflict. It was widely reported that, at the time of Israel’s 13 June 2025 attacks, further negotiations with the United States were scheduled but Iran cancelled them following the attacks – lending some support to what was conveyed in the broadcast.⁹

Omission of ‘true sequence of events’

[18]  The broadcast was a brief update on the reaction to an ongoing situation and it was not possible, nor was RNZ required, to ‘cover every single detail of the story in the context of this very short item’.¹⁰ It was within RNZ’s editorial discretion to choose the focus of its coverage, including whether to mention the events leading to Israel's attack on Iran.¹¹

[19]  As outlined at paragraph [17], further context would also lend some support to the impressions conveyed in the broadcast.

[20]  In the circumstances, we have identified no harm sufficient to justify our intervention in RNZ’s exercise of freedom of expression and 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
23 September 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Watkin's original complaint - 22 June 2025

2  RNZ response - 24 June 2025

3  Watkin's referral to the Authority - 7 July 2025

4  RNZ's further comments - 15 July 2025

5  Watkin's further comments - 29 July 2025

6  RNZ's confirmation of no further comments - 29 July 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 Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Guideline 5.1; Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” <bsa.govt.nz>; Grinwis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-090 at [9]; and OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [10]
⁷ For a similar finding, see Grinwis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-090 at [10]
⁸ For a similar finding, see Newburgh and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-075
⁹ Elizabeth Crisp “Iran pulls out of nuclear talks with the US” The Hill (online ed, 13 June 2025); Neil MacFarquhar “Next Round of Nuclear Talks Between U.S. and Iran Is Off” The New York Times (online ed, 14 June 2025); “Iran cancels US nuclear talks next round amid ‘barbarous’ Israeli attacks” Al Jazeera (online ed, 14 June 2025); and Danai Nesta Kupemba “Iranian foreign minister admits serious damage to nuclear sites” BBC (online ed, 27 June 2025
¹⁰ Grinwis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-090 at [17]
¹¹ For a similar finding, see Newburgh and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2024-075 at [12]