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 that a 1News item, reporting on developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, breached the accuracy, balance and fairness standards. The item discussed an increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state due to Israel’s continuing military action in Gaza, and the possibility of New Zealand following suit. The complainant considered the report cast Israel in a negative light, contained numerous inaccuracies (largely in relation to its description of the geographical situation in the conflict zone), and omitted important information from an Israeli perspective. The Authority found no material inaccuracies or misleading omissions in the report. It found the balance standard was not breached as significant alternative perspectives on the issue were presented, including that of Israel; and the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness 

The broadcast

[1]  An item during the 22 September 2025 broadcast of 1News reported on developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict.

[2]  The first part of the item discussed an increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state, and the possibility of a two-state solution. The presenter introduced the item:

Israel has reacted furiously after Australia, the UK, and Canada announced they're formally recognising Palestine as a state. The coordinated move piles pressure on New Zealand to do the same, with its key allies saying the action revives hopes for peace with a so-called two-state solution. 

[3]  While the presenter was speaking, the background display showed the words ‘Middle East Conflict’ against a large Palestinian flag, alongside a person waving a Palestinian flag. 

[4]  The presenter continued, explaining the current geographical situation in the conflict region, and how the borders would look according to the two-state solution. This was illustrated with maps shown onscreen:

This is the situation now [map shown].  Israeli-occupied Gaza – there [pointing to map] – is officially governed by Hamas, a group our Government deems terrorists, and which Israel is trying to destroy. And the Israeli-occupied West Bank is officially governed by the Palestinian Authority, but really it's Israel who has the last word. Israel has many illegal settlements across the territory and recently approved more [map shows a number of dots in the West Bank representing illegal Israeli settlements], which it's feared would cut the West Bank in two, sever Palestinian links to East Jerusalem and end the notion of a two-state solution. And this is broadly what that proposed two-state solution looks like [map shown]. The borders are essentially how they were before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, with a reformed Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza and the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as the sovereign nation's capital. The barriers and diplomatic risks are immense, which we'll explain in our extensive coverage tonight. 

[5]  The item went on to explore the reasons for, and international reactions to, the decisions by Australia, the UK and Canada to recognise Palestine as a state with commentary provided by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Middle East Security Expert, the Head of the Palestinian mission to UK, the Palestinian Foreign Minister and two Palestinians in Gaza:

Reporter:                    Israeli tanks and troops amid the rubble of Gaza City [footage shown of soldiers in the war zone, watermarked ‘Israeli Defence Force’ with the caption ‘Activity of the 98th Division in the Gaza Strip’]. Israel says it's targeting Hamas militants in order to seize its final stronghold. But among the dead are dozens of civilians, many here chose to stay, as fleeing seemed no less a risk. 

Palestinian in Gaza:  [translated in voiceover] There is no safe place, we could die at any moment. 

Reporter:                    [Aerial footage shown of a city reduced to rubble] Israel's military expansion and the ever-mounting cost has driven its more powerful allies Australia, Britain and Canada towards a significant shift in foreign policy, recognising a Palestinian state. 

Starmer:                     With the actions of Hamas, the Israeli government escalating the conflict and settlement building being accelerated in the West Bank, the hope of a two-state solution is fading. But we cannot let that light go out. 

Reporter:                    Israel's reaction: fury from the families of the hostages still held in Gaza and the Government which says a sovereign Palestine threatens Israel's survival. 

Netanyahu:                 We will have to fight both in the UN and in all other arenas against the false propaganda against us, and the calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state that will endanger our existence and constitute an absurd reward for terrorism. 

Reporter:                    It's a stance that's seen Israel increasingly isolated. Some three quarters of the world now recognise Palestinian statehood. 

Security Expert:        But without the United States coming on board with the idea of a Palestine, I think very little will change. 

Reporter:                    Still, Palestinians say it's a start, one they hope can correct what they say is a historic injustice. 

Palestinian mission: The question is never why should the UK and the rest of the world recognise the state of Palestine. The question is why the UK has not recognised the state of Palestine until now?

Foreign Minister:       This also sends a very clear message of hope to the Palestinian people.

Reporter:                    Hope those in Gaza long for but struggle to see as real. 

Palestinian in Gaza:  [translated in voiceover] We just hope to God that someone outside would acknowledge us as human beings. 

Palestinian in Gaza:  [translated in voiceover] The least of our rights is for a country of our own, where we can live in safety. 

Reporter:                    Today's move remains largely symbolic, but one it's hoped can rescue a vanishing idea that a Palestinian state next to an Israeli one is the path to peace. 

[6]  The item then reported that France, the UK, Canada and Australia had been sent a letter from a group of US Republicans threatening ‘punitive measures’ over their formal declarations of Palestinian statehood, as ‘this reckless policy would empower Hamas, endanger Israel’s security and eliminate a path to peace.’ It showed Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s response that ‘our foreign policy isn’t determined in Washington or Beijing or Wellington for that matter.’ The reporter also noted:

And there have been many different views in Australia too, but interestingly, both Jewish and Palestinian leaders here have attacked the Albanese government's symbolic move. Jewish leaders say it will set back the process towards peace, while Palestinian leaders here say this is just an attempt to placate public outrage and they're calling for immediate sanctions on Israel.

[7]  The last part of the item explored New Zealand’s upcoming announcement on whether it will recognise Palestine as a state, noting there were ‘overwhelming calls’ for this to happen. It included perspectives from Prime Minister Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson (other Green Party MPs were shown briefly in Parliament wearing kufiyas), international relations commentator Professor Robert Patman of the University of Otago, and vox-pops from members of the public. The vox-pops were as follows:

Vox-pop 1:                 Well it's going to give people rights, it's gonna give people like, autonomy over where they live and everyone wants that, don't they? 

Vox-pop 2:                 The genocide that's happening at the moment just is unacceptable and it's just going unnoticed by the Government.

Vox-pop 3:                 You know, for too long they've stayed out of it and I think at this point anyone who stays out of is becoming more and more complicit by the day. 

                        […]

Vox-pop 4:                 It's very very poor, very slow, they're shuffling around waiting to see what America might want them to do, that's the way it seems to me. 

Vox-pop 5:                 I think we should be doing more and putting sanctions against Israel and recognising Palestine as a state.

Vox-pop 6:                 I mean I think the Government needs to stop being scared of what other people think and really stand up for what New Zealanders really think.

[8]  One of Davidson’s comments was, ‘This is about saying clearly to Israel you cannot get away with the violence and the murder that you are perpetrating, the genocide you are perpetrating.’

[9]  The reporter said the Government’s current position as stated by Luxon, that ‘we're not pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, we're just pro-peace and that's really what needs to happen’, was ‘a partisan position many it seems are quickly losing patience with’.

The complaint

[10]  Andy Watson complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. His arguments under each standard are summarised below.

Accuracy

[11]  The complainant considered there to be multiple inaccuracies, as well as misleading omissions in the broadcast. His key concerns were:

a)  The item described Gaza as ‘Israeli-occupied Gaza’. He considered Israel had a right to defend itself after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks, and the intent was to give it back to the Gazan people after Hamas have been removed.

b)  When showing the map, the presenter referred to the West Bank as ‘Israeli-occupied’ and as if it was part of a country called Palestine. In fact the region was occupied by Jordan in the 1948 War and was known as the Occupied [by Jordan] West Bank, before being returned to Israel. There is no country of Palestine in existence.

c)  The item said the occupied West Bank was governed by the Palestinian Authority (in its entirety). It failed to mention the land is split into three zones and ‘the PA only has jurisdiction in Zone A (the smallest zone) and limited power in Zone B whereas Zone C (most of the West Bank) is governed by Israel’.

d)  The item inferred ‘that Israel deemed Gaza was governed by terrorists – phrased in a negative light as the aggressor – however, Hamas is designated a terrorist organisation and overthrew the PA in 2007’.

e)  ‘It was claimed there are many illegal settlements across the West Bank territory. However, no mention was made of legal settlements in Israeli controlled Zone C, nor was mention made of the many Israelis who work with local Palestinians, nor of Palestinian aggression towards Israeli people (it was phrased as if the aggression is always against Palestinians by Israelis).’

f)  There were ‘incorrect references to East Jerusalem as if it were part of Palestine. Apart from a treaty with Jordan in 2012, I believe historically, East Jerusalem was part of the Hebrew tribe of Benjamin in the land of Israel.’

g)  While it was claimed a two-state solution would return the borders to pre-1967 status with a reformed Palestinian Authority, the broadcast omitted to outline this would effectively annex part of Israel as a sovereign country, and Palestinians cannot enter into negotiations with other countries as they are not part of a state.

h)  The broadcast made a claim ‘of Palestinian legitimacy of East Jerusalem’. However, ‘the Palestinian movement was founded in 1964 as a political party (why there is no country called Palestine)’ and ‘as far as I am aware there are no ancient historical or archaeological links to East Jerusalem for the Palestinians outside of any political claims.’

i)  In relation to the footage shown of Gaza, the complainant understood that no foreign journalists were allowed in Gaza at the time of the report. He considered the footage may therefore have come indirectly from Hamas, in which case TVNZ would not have been able to determine its legitimacy.

j)  He suspected two women interviewed said to be ‘Palestinians in Gaza’ were not actually Gazan.

k)  The item did not mention that ‘civilians were being moved to safety and of various initiatives in that manner’.

l)  The statement ‘[s]ome three quarters of the world now recognise Palestinian statehood’ was incorrect and unable to be proved. ‘While many politicians are calling for statehood, the actual people on the ground do not appear to be in support.’

m)  An MP stated Israel was performing genocide, which is untrue, and Israel had been ‘going out of its way to move civilians out of the way of harm’.

n)  The broadcast said members of the public were critical of the New Zealand Government’s response to the conflict, but ‘did not attempt to interview anyone that did not hold a pro-Palestinian view’.

Balance

[12]  The complainant considered the item was biased against Israel and ‘an attempt to sway public opinion’ in support of recognising Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution. He considered it to be an example of ongoing biased reporting against Israel. The following aspects contributed to this:

a)  The opening background display showed the words ‘Middle East conflict’ and the Palestinian flag. TVNZ could have selected a range of other flags of countries affected in the region.

b)  The item was focused on the Palestinian perspective at the expense of the Israeli perspective. There was very little coverage of the Israeli perspective – Israeli officials were not interviewed, nor were other Israeli people ‘such as Arabs, Druze, Bedouin and Jewish peoples’. The only pro-Israel perspective included that of was Israel’s Prime Minister.

c)  The inaccuracies listed above contributed to the pro-Palestine perspective, and painted Israel as the aggressor. Important facts from an Israeli perspective were not mentioned, such as civilians being moved to safety.

d)  The New Zealanders interviewed for vox-pops were all critical of the Government’s response to the conflict.

e)  The broadcast showed Green Party MPs wearing kufiyas, which are offensive to Israeli people.

[13]  The complainant did not think it was fair to take into account reporting by other media in terms of providing alternative perspectives, given the import and impact the state broadcaster has at peak viewing time.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Accuracy

[15]  TVNZ responded to the complainant’s concerns under the accuracy standard as follows:

a)  The term ‘Israeli-occupied Gaza’ was not misleading, noting the Institute for Middle East Understanding¹ and the International Court of Justice² describe it this way.

b)  The West Bank is commonly referred to as the ‘Occupied West Bank,’ including by the New Zealand Government.³

c)  TVNZ agreed the presenter’s comment ’the Israeli-occupied West Bank is officially governed by the Palestinian Authority but really it’s Israel that has the last word’, was partially incorrect. It said ‘[TVNZ] agrees that this comment does not adequately describe the situation in the West Bank in regard to the powers of the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority exercise partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves – Area A and B under the Oslo II Accord: but this does not include Area C which was intended to be gradually transferred to Palestinian jurisdiction by 1997 (although this has not happened) […] We therefore find that the information provided in the brief comment is not precise enough and therefore misrepresents the situation.’ It apologised to the complainant and said 1News staff had been advised more precision was needed. However it did not find a breach of the accuracy standard on the basis this particular information was not material to the focus of the broadcast, which was Palestinian statehood.

d)  The broadcast did not make any incorrect inference that ‘Israel deemed Gaza was governed by terrorists’. The broadcast’s statement was ‘Israel-occupied Gaza – there – is officially governed by Hamas, a group our government deems “terrorists”, and which Israel is trying to destroy.’ This did not imply any falsehood.

e)  It was accurate to state ‘Israel has many illegal settlements across the [West Bank] territory.’ This is supported by a 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice⁴, and Al Jazeera.⁵

f)  The broadcast made no inaccurate statement in relation to Palestinian ties to East Jerusalem. ‘The United Nations and other intergovernmental organisations consider East Jerusalem a part of the Palestinian territories according to international law, and under illegal occupation by Israel.’

g)  The broadcast was not inaccurate in its description of what a two-state solution might look like. The presenter said, ‘this is broadly what that proposed two-state solution looks like’. Most proposals are based on pre-1967 borders and include East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital.⁶

h)  The footage of the war zone in Gaza was ‘watermarked in the 1News report as coming from the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) showing “activity of the 98th Division in the Gaza strip”, it did not come from Hamas as [the complainant] claimed’.

i)  In relation to the concerns the item did not mention that ‘civilians were being moved to safety and of various initiatives in that manner’, TVNZ responded ‘In the 1News item, the Reporter explains many here chose to stay, as fleeing seemed no less a risk. [Palestinian in Gaza] says there is no safe place. We could die at any moment.’

j)  It was correct to say three quarters of the world now recognise Palestinian statehood. ‘There are 195 countries in the world, 156 countries recognise Palestine which is equal to around 80% (a few countries recognised Palestinian statehood after this 1News report)⁷.’

k)  With regard to the complainant’s doubts that two women shown as ‘Palestinians in Gaza’ were not actually Gazan, TVNZ advised the footage was taken in Gaza by the Associated Press, which was allowed into Gaza to film.⁸

l)  ‘Two people in the 1News report described what was happening in Gaza as “genocide.” This amounts to their opinion which is not subject to the expectations of the Accuracy standard. [TVNZ] notes that a United Nations Commission of Inquiry has recently found that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Occupied Gaza⁹, and so this opinion is reasonable to hold, and report on.’

Balance

[16]  TVNZ found the balance standard was not breached as:

a)  ‘In the reporting comment is heard from Keir Starmer, UK Prime Minister, members of the Israeli public, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister, Burcu Ozcelik, Middle East Security Expert, Husam Zomlot, Head of the Palestinian Mission to the UK, Varsen Aghabekian Shahin, Palestinian Foreign Minister, two Palestinian women from Gaza, the US government, Anthony Albanese, Australian Prime Minister, Jewish and Palestinian leaders in Australia, and for New Zealand’s position: people on the street, Christopher Luxon, Marama Davidson, Green Party Co-Leader, Robert Patman from University of Otago.’

b)  ‘It is an established principle of this standard that balance cannot be measured by a stopwatch; it is sufficient that significant viewpoints are adequately represented within the period of current interest. [TVNZ] finds that this has occurred in the 1News story and other 1News reporting.’¹⁰

c)  ‘We also note that the issues in question have been discussed widely in surrounding media coverage, so it is reasonable to expect that viewers would be aware of alternative viewpoints.’

d)  ‘Israeli and Jewish perspectives were included in the report including in comment from Benjamin Netanyahu, a description of Australian Jewish leaders’ concerns, and the reaction of Israelis fury given by the Reporters.’

e)  ‘The Palestinian flag is shown as the discussion concerns the recognition of Palestine as a state. The “conflict in the Middle East” title is frequently used for all reporting of conflicts in the region by 1News, there is no requirement to show all the flags of the region in a discussion about Palestinian statehood.’

f)  ‘People on the street were interviewed, and they gave their candid opinions on the issue of Palestinian statehood, which were duly reported. The parameters of their comments are clearly available to viewers – these were the opinions of people in this location at that time. [TVNZ] does not agree that opposing public comments need to be actively sourced if they were not presented by members of the public at that time, for the requirements of the balance standard to be met.’

g)  While it did not agree the broadcast was ‘biased’, it noted within the limits of the standard, broadcasters are free to promote or challenge particular ideas, philosophies or people.

Fairness

[17]  TVNZ noted the complainant had not made specific arguments under the fairness standard. However, if the complaint related to fairness to Israel, it noted countries are not considered to be ‘organisations’ for the purposes of the fairness standard.¹¹ ‘To the extent that comments may have been considered “unfair” to Israel, statements conveying Israel’s perspective were also included, which is what the fairness standard would have required if applied.’

The standards

[18]  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.¹² The standard states:¹³

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.¹⁴ The standard states:¹⁵

a)  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).

b)  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 fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁶ The standard states that broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.¹⁷ Israel as a nation is not an ‘organisation’ for the purposes of this standard.¹⁸ The standard is therefore not applicable and we do not assess it directly in our decision. However the complainant’s concerns in relation to fairness to Israel are to a large extent addressed under the accuracy and balance standard.  

Our analysis

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

[22]  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.¹⁹

[23]  The Authority has noted in numerous previous decisions²⁰ the high public and political interest in the Israel-Hamas conflict. There was high public interest in this broadcast, which covered recent developments in the conflict: increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state due to Israel’s continuing military action in Gaza, and the possibility of New Zealand following suit.

[24]  The complainant has made detailed arguments regarding the alleged inaccuracies, and his views and understanding of the historical context of the conflict (not all of this detail has been included in the complaint summary). Many of his concerns relate to matters of personal preference, and what he considers should have been included in the item. Our role is to assess what was said and shown in the broadcast.

[25]  The broadcaster’s response was comprehensive in responding to the complainant’s concerns. We agree with their reasoning in all aspects of the complaint, and do not find any breach of the standards nominated. Our assessment under each standard, in order of relevancy, is set out below.

Accuracy

[26]  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 the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[27]  The standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.²¹

[28]  We address each of the complainant’s allegations of inaccuracy below.

(a) – ‘Israeli-occupied Gaza’

[29]  The complainant considered describing Gaza as ‘Israeli-occupied’ was inaccurate, as Israel had a right to defend itself after the 7 October attacks, and the intent was to give it back once Hamas was removed.

[30]  It was not misleading for the broadcast to describe Gaza as ‘Israeli-occupied’. While the complainant may hold a different view, New Zealand’s official position on this matter is that Israel has been occupying Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights since 1967.²² This position is also held by international institutions such as the United Nations,²³ and the International Court of Justice,²⁴ which have considered this matter under principles of international law. The description was therefore accurate.

(b) – ‘Israeli-occupied West Bank,’ part of Palestine

[31]  The complainant considered the description of the West Bank as ‘Israeli-occupied’, as if it were part of a country called Palestine, was inaccurate.

[32]  The presenter’s statement was ‘And the Israeli-occupied West Bank is officially governed by the Palestinian Authority, but really it's Israel who has the last word.’ As explained in our assessment of alleged inaccuracy (a), it is not inaccurate to describe the West Bank as ‘Israeli-occupied’. The presenter did not say or imply that the West Bank was part of an existing country called Palestine. 

(c) – West Bank governed by Palestinian Authority

[33]  We agree with the broadcaster’s finding that its description ‘the Israeli-occupied West Bank is officially governed by the Palestinian Authority but really it’s Israel that has the last word’ misrepresented the extent of the Palestinian Authority’s power to some degree, by not mentioning the land is divided into three areas, and that Israel governs Area C.

[34]  However, we also agree this misrepresentation was not material in the context of the broadcast. The comment was very brief in the context of a nine-minute item. The presenter was explaining the current geographical situation in the conflict region, and how the borders would look according to the two-state solution, as part of a report focused overall on an increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state. In this context, not explaining the technicalities of the West Bank’s governance would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the report as a whole.

(d) – Inference Israel deemed Gaza governed by terrorists

[35]  The complainant considered the statement: ‘Israeli-occupied Gaza – there - is officially governed by Hamas, a group our Government deems terrorists, and which Israel is trying to destroy’ inferred Israel deemed Gaza was governed by terrorists, and painted Israel ‘in a negative light as the aggressor’.

[36]  It was not stated that Israel deemed Gaza was governed by terrorists, however even if this was stated or inferred, it is accurate that Israel considers Hamas to be a terrorist organisation.²⁵ Further, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made comments to the effect that Israel would not end the war in Gaza until Hamas’ military and governing capabilities were destroyed.²⁶

[37]  We therefore find no inaccuracy with this statement.  

(e) – Omission of information re West bank settlements

[38]  The complainant was concerned that while the item said there were many illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, no mention was made of the legal settlements there, of Israelis who work with local Palestinians, or of Palestinian aggression towards Israeli people.

[39]  As noted, the presenter was explaining the current geographical situation in the conflict region, and how the borders would look according to a two-state solution, as part of a report focused on an increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state due to Israel’s continuing military action in Gaza. In this context, the omission of the further details identified by the complainant was not misleading, as they were not relevant to the topic being reported on.

(f) – East Jerusalem part of Palestine

[40]  The broadcast did not refer to East Jerusalem as being part of an existing Palestinian state. Its reference to East Jerusalem was that, as part of the proposed two-state solution, East Jerusalem was proposed to be ‘the sovereign nation’s [Palestine’s] capital’. This is the common understanding of the proposal under a two-state solution.²⁷

(g) – Omission re annexation of Israel

[41]  The complainant was concerned the broadcast’s explanation of a two-state solution failed to mention this would annex part of Israel, and that Palestinians could not enter into negotiations with other countries in any event.

[42]  As above at [40], the broadcast’s explanation of the proposal under a two-state solution represented the common understanding. Omitting the information identified by the complainant, which amount to matters of personal preference or a reflection of the complainant's own understanding of the proposed two-state solution, did not give any misleading impression.  

(h) – Palestinian legitimacy over East Jerusalem

[43]  The complainant was of the view the broadcast’s statement Israel’s illegal settlements were feared to ‘sever Palestinian links to East Jerusalem’ made a claim ‘of Palestinian legitimacy of East Jerusalem’, when Palestinians have no ‘ancient historical or archaeological’ links to the city. Palestinian people have clear links to East Jerusalem.²⁸ The statement was not misleading.

(i) – Footage of Gaza

[44]  The complainant was concerned footage shown of Gaza may have come indirectly from Hamas, arguing in which case its accuracy would be called into question. TVNZ has advised some footage came from the Israeli Defence Forces, and we note it was labelled as such.

[45]  There is nothing to suggest any other footage in the broadcast had come from Hamas. This also of itself does not mean any inaccuracy would have occurred.

(i) – Palestinians interviewed not Gazan

[46]  The complainant advised he suspected women interviewed said to be ‘Palestinians in Gaza’ were not actually Gazan. The broadcast did not state they were Gazan – just that they were in Gaza. TVNZ has advised the footage was taken in Gaza by the Associated Press (AP) which described the women as ‘displaced from the North’. It was reasonable for TVNZ to rely on AP as a reputable news source.

(k) – Omissions re Israeli initiatives

[47]  In relation to the complainant’s concerns the item did not mention ‘civilians were being moved to safety and of various initiatives in that manner’, our reasoning at [39] applies. In the context of an item focused on an increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state due to Israel’s continuing military action, it was not misleading to exclude this tangential information.

(l) – Three quarters of the world recognise Palestinian statehood

[48]  The complainant said it was inaccurate to claim ‘[s]ome three quarters of the world now recognise Palestinian statehood’ as ‘the actual people on the ground do not appear to be in support’.

[49]  We consider the natural interpretation of this statement to be that three quarters of world states now recognise Palestinian statehood, rather than individuals. As TVNZ advised, it was correct at the time of the broadcast (and remains so) that at least 75% of world states recognise Palestine as a state.²⁹ The statement was therefore accurate.

(m) – Israel performing genocide

[50]  The complainant considered Marama Davidson’s MP’s comment: ‘This is about saying clearly to Israel you cannot get away with the violence and the murder that you are perpetrating, the genocide you are perpetrating’ was inaccurate as Israel was not performing genocide.

[51]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact. However, broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts:

• referred to; or
• upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based.³⁰

[52]  Davidson’s comment was clearly distinguishable as opinion on behalf of the Green Party (her speaker title was ‘Green Party Co-leader’). Further, we do not believe it was materially misleading to include such a comment, noting the issue of whether Israel committed genocide was the subject of intense global debate, and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel found Israel had committed genocide in the Gaza Strip.³¹

(n) – Public interviewed were all pro-Palestinian

[53]  The complainant was concerned the vox-pops shown were all of a pro-Palestinian view, therefore misrepresenting overall public opinion. The broadcaster advised these were the opinions of people in the particular location at that time. As we have previously found, general viewers would understand that vox-pops from certain locations are not necessarily representative of the country as a whole.³²

Conclusion

[54]  We find no breach of the accuracy standard.

Balance

[55]  The complainant’s key concern under this standard was that the item was an example of ongoing bias against Israel and ‘an attempt to sway public opinion’ in support of recognising Palestinian statehood and a two-state solution. 

[56]  While we do not agree the item was biased, the balance standard is not directed at ‘bias’ in and of itself.³³ Broadcasters, as a matter of freedom of expression and editorial discretion, are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus. Further, we are only able to consider formal complaints about specific broadcasts, rather than allegations of ongoing bias. We note, while the complainant considers the broadcast to be an example of ongoing anti-Israel bias, the Authority has considered also a number of complaints alleging pro-Israel bias by TVNZ.³⁴  

[57]  The balance standard is directed at whether alternative perspectives on significant issues were presented, either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest. This is required unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.³⁵ 

[58]  The standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance. Broadcasters should give a fair voice to alternative significant viewpoints taking into account the nature of the issue and coverage of that issue.³⁶

[59]  Various criteria must be satisfied before the balance standard’s requirement to present alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’.³⁷ Consistent with previous decisions concerning news items on the Israel-Hamas conflict,³⁸ we consider this item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – specifically, an increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state due to Israel’s continuing military action, and the possibility of New Zealand following suit. Accordingly, the standard applies.

[60]  However, we do not find any breach of the balance standard for the reasons set out below:

a)  As noted by the broadcaster (see para [16](a)) the item presented a range of perspectives on the topic being discussed.

b)  The requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced where it is clear the programme is approaching an issue from a particular perspective, or is narrowly focused only on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.³⁹ The particular focus of this broadcast was an increasing number of countries recognising Palestinian statehood, in the context of an ongoing war and humanitarian catastrophe⁴⁰ in Gaza. As a result, it was reasonable that the item had more of a Palestinian focus.

c)  In any event, the report included multiple comments on Israel’s perspective on the topic being discussed, such as ‘Israel has reacted furiously after Australia, the UK, and Canada announced they're formally recognising Palestine as a state’, ‘Israel's reaction: fury from the families of the hostages still held in Gaza and the Government which says a sovereign Palestine threatens Israel's survival’ and ‘Israel says it's targeting Hamas militants in order to seize its final stronghold.’ It included reaction from the Israeli Prime Minister to more countries recognising Palestinian statehood, and Jewish leaders in Australia to Australia’s decision to recognise Palestine.

d)  The standard is reflective of New Zealand’s current broadcasting environment, including the proliferation of information available from sources on a vast range of topics. As we have previously recognised,⁴¹ the Israel-Hamas conflict has been and continues to be covered extensively in a range of media. The decisions of Australia, the UK and Canada to recognise Palestinian statehood, and Israeli perspectives on this, were also reported widely.⁴² It is therefore reasonable to expect audiences to be aware of significant context and viewpoints on the issues canvassed in the broadcast. 

[61]  Responding to other arguments made by the complainant under this standard:

a)  We do not consider showing the Palestinian flag in the opening background display represented ‘bias’ or contributed to a lack of balance. The item was about growing recognition of Palestinian statehood. In these circumstances, it was a reasonable editorial choice.

b)  As noted in our assessment under the accuracy standard, inclusion of additional information from an Israeli perspective, such as civilians being moved to safety, was not required to avoid misleading the audience. The broadcast sufficiently alerted the audience to Israel’s perspective on the topic being discussed – the growing recognition of Palestinian statehood by other states.

c)  While the complainant argued the alleged inaccuracies contributed to a lack of balance in the item, we did not agree the broadcast contained any inaccuracy. 

d)  As noted previously, while the complainant considered the nature of the vox-pops contributed to a lack of balance, general viewers would understand that vox-pops from certain locations are not necessarily representative of the country as a whole.⁴³

e)  We do not agree showing Green Party MPs wearing kufiyas contributed to a lack of balance in the broadcast. Kufiyas (or ‘keffiyehs’) are often worn by non-Palestinians as a sign of solidarity and support to Palestine.⁴⁴ The image indicated the Green Party’s support for Palestine, as one of the perspectives shown as part of the broadcast.

[62]   Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
1 April 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Watson’s original complaint – 29 September 2025

2  TVNZ’s decision – 28 October 2025

3  Watson’s referral to the Authority – 1 November 2025

4  Watson’s further comments – 10 November 2025

5  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 20 November 2025

6  Watson’s further comments – 7 December 2025

¹ Institute for Middle East Understanding (19 June 2023) “Fact Sheet: Legal Status of the Gaza Strip” <imeu.org>: ‘The Gaza Strip is Palestinian land that has been under Israeli military occupation since the June 1967 war. According to international law and the terms of the Oslo Accords, Gaza is considered a single territorial unit with the Palestinian West Bank and East Jerusalem, which have also been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. Although Israel unilaterally withdrew its occupying arm and settlers from the interior of Gaza in 2005, Israel continued to be an occupying power in Gaza under international law, because Israel’s military continued to retain effective control of Gaza’s borders, airspace, and coastline. Israel’s continued status as an occupying power in Gaza has been affirmed repeatedly by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and human rights groups.’
² Obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third states in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2025] ICJ at 3
³ New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatū Aorere “Israel-Hamas Conflict” <mfat.govt.nz>
⁴ Legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Advisory Opinion) [2024] ICJ at 278
⁵ Mohammed Haddad and Mohamed A. Hussein “Explainer: Mapping the 21 illegal settlements Israel had in Gaza 20 years ago” Al Jazeera (online ed, 16 September 2025): ‘Settlements are Jewish-only communities built on Palestinian land. There are between 600,000-750,000 Israeli settlers living in at least 250 settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.’
⁶ TVNZ cited: Wikipedia (last updated 9 February 2026) “Two-state solution” < wikipedia.org>: ‘The major points of contention include the specific boundaries of the two states (though most proposals are based on the 1967 lines)’ 
⁷ TVNZ cited: Les Décodeurs “Map: The countries that recognize a Palestinian state” Le Monde (online ed, 23 September 2025)
⁸ TVNZ cited: “Residents of Gaza and West Bank react to international recognition of Palestinian state” AP (online ed, 23 September 2025); and “Fleeing Palestinians react to international recognition of Palestinian state” AP (online ed, 22 September 2025)
⁹ “Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (A/HRC/60/CRP.3)
¹⁰ TVNZ cited: Logan Church “NZ will not yet recognise Palestinian statehood, Peters says in UN speech” 1News (online ed, 27 September 2025); 1News Reporters “’Now is not the time’: Luxon defends Govt decision on Palestine” 1News (online ed, 27 September 2025); 1News Reporters “Full video: Luxon speaks to media after NZ decision on Palestine” 1News (online ed, 27 September 2025); and Q+A Reporters “NZ’s reputation to ‘take hit’ after Palestine decision – former top diplomat” 1News (online ed, 28 September 2025)
¹¹ For a similar finding see Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057 at [16]
¹² Commentary, Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁴ Commentary, Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹⁵ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁶ Commentary, Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ For similar findings, see Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-096 at [22] and Maasland & others and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-118 at [45]
¹⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
²⁰ See Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [12]; Zaky and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-004 at [17]; and Wellington Palestine Group and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2018-053 at [9]
²¹ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²² New Zealand Foreign Affairs & Trade | Manatū Aorere “Israel-Hamas Conflict” <mfat.govt.nz>
²³ United Nations “The Question of Palestine” <un.org/unispal/history/>
²⁴ Obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third states in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2025] ICJ at 3
²⁵ “What is Hamas and why is it fighting with Israel in Gaza?” BBC (online ed, 15 October 2025)
²⁶ Bethan McKernan “Benjamin Netanyahu insists on Israel ‘destruction’ as part of plan to end Gaza war” The Guardian (online ed, 1 June 2024)
²⁷ “Israel and Palestinians: History of the conflict explained” BBC (online ed, 15 October 2025)
²⁸ United Nations (1980) “The Palestine Question: A Brief History” <un.org>
²⁹ Marium Ali “Which are the 150+ countries that have recognised Palestine as of 2025?” CNN (online ed, 23 September 2025)
³⁰ Guideline 6.1: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
³¹ “Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide” (A/HRC/60/CRP.3)
³² For similar findings see Dobson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-118 at [23] and Carter and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-113 at [23]
³³ Drinnan and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-083 at [14] and Robinson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-133
³⁴ See for example: Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-082; Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088; Duke and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-068; Al-Jiab and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-058; and Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040
³⁵ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³⁶ Guideline 5.3, Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³⁷ Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [10] and Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [9]
³⁸ See Lancaster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-097 at [11]; Kee and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-088 at [11]; Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-040 at [38], 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]
³⁹ Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴⁰ United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (5 September 2025) “Situation Report #187 on the Humanitarian Crisis in the Gaza Strip and occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem” <unwra.org>
⁴¹ 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]
⁴² See for example: Logan Church “’Finish the job’: Netanyahu gives fiery speech ahead of NZ’s UN address” 1News (online ed, 27 September 2025); “Reaction to recognition of Palestinian state by UK, Canada and Australia” Reuters (online ed, 22 September 2025); Luc Bronner “Israel’s near-unanimous rejection of the recognition of Palestine” Le Monde (online ed, 22 September 2025); Lazar Berman “Israel unites against hollow recognition of Palestine, but PM could be pushed too far” The Times of Israel (online ed, 22 September 2025); and Jason Burke “Israeli politicians react bitterly to international recognitions of Palestinian state” The Guardian (online ed, 22 September 2025)
⁴³ See Dobson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-118 at [23] and Carter and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-113 at [23] for similar findings
⁴⁴ Wikipedia (last updated 11 February 2026) “Palestinian keffiyeh” <en.wikipedia.org>