Two complaints about Middle East reporting not upheld
Photo:
RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The Media Council has ruled in favour of RNZ on two stories about the Gaza conflict.
Both complaints concerned similar issues and were considered together. Ms Olivia Coote complained about a story on 20 January 2025 headed 'A long-awaited ceasefire
has finally begun in Gaza. Here's what we know.' Mr Eric Mattlin complained about a story on 31 January 2025 headed 'Palestinian militants begin handover of three Israeli hostages in
latest ceasefire deal'.
Both complained that different information and terminology used about the hostage/prisoner exchange for those on both sides of the conflict breached the Media Council's Principle 1 - Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. Mr Mattlin complained more generally that the 31 January story was biased in favour of Israel.
The Council said it could find no fault with the word "hostages" being used to describe those abducted by Hamas on 7 October. The Council also believed that the use of the term "militants" to
describe members of Hamas was defensible, given the NZ Oxford Dictionary definition of a person who was "aggressively active" particularly in support of a political cause.
The use of the word "prisoner" was more complicated and the complainants raised some interesting points about the legitimacy of the arrests and the detention of the Palestinians, and the implications of the words used. However, one definition of the word "prisoner" in the NZ Oxford Dictionary was simply "a person kept in prison", so the Council did not believe that the use of the word "prisoner" meant they were legitimately imprisoned.
Accordingly, the Council considered the terminology used by RNZ in the story did not breach Principle 1.
On whether RNZ's coverage was biased when it gave more details about the Israelis released than the Palestinians, again the Council said it could understand the concerns of the complainants. It was understandable that those on either side of highly charged subjects felt that their side of the story was not being put clearly, or that they would have preferred a different angle to have been taken.
However, the Council accepted RNZ's point that there was more information available about the Israeli hostages, and the fact that there were only three Israelis and many Palestinians in each story meant it was not surprising that there was more information about the Israelis.
The Council concluded that there was a significant amount of balance in both stories, which were in response to the most recent developments in the conflict, and it was acceptable to focus on those events. Extensive coverage of background factors is not required under Principle (1) which states in part: "Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report."
On balance, the Council said these were thought-provoking complaints, but the Council could find no evidence of systemic bias in the stories, which reported the latest developments in the conflict, using the information available.
The Council's
full finding can be found here
:
Media Council - Eric Mattlin and Olivia Coote against Radio New Zealand
The decision follows the release, by RNZ, of an independent editorial assessment of its coverage of the Middle East.
The report can be found here
:
RNZ : Editorial Reviews
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
an hour ago
- Scoop
Experts Warn Regulatory Standards Bill Threatens Future Public Health Laws
Article – RNZ One of the experts said it would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. , Reporter Public health experts are worried the government's proposed Regulatory Standards Bill will act as a disincentive for future law-makers to limit harmful industries. A group of scholars in health and policy have worked together on a briefing, titled 'Regulatory Standards Bill threatens the public interest, public health and Māori rights'. It's authors are Jonathan Boston, Michael Baker, Andrew Geddis, Carwyn Jones and Geoffrey Palmer. The Regulatory Standards Bill was introduced to Parliament in May, and is now being considered by the finance and expenditure committee. It would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. It was part of ACT's coalition agreement, and in putting the bill forward, party leader David Seymour said: 'In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral – it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made.' The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. 'This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'.' But Baker said the bill had prompted a large number of concerns, not least from a public health perspective. He said it was problematic that the bill failed to mention public harm in its ethical framework, which was needed to balance out private benefits. Another issue was the 'takings or impairment principle'. The bill in its current form would allow commercial interests, such as the tobacco or alcohol industries, to seek compensation – paid with public money – if any future legislation caused them to lose money. Baker explained this would have a 'chilling effect' on public health measures. He said it would make it less appealing for governments to create any new legislation aimed at protecting public health which could negatively impact harmful industries, which might then seek compensation. This could include the denicotinisation of cigarettes, alcohol restrictions like sponsorship bans, controls on unhealthy food and drink such as limiting marketing to children, and clean air provisions such as mandating emissions reductions by industry. This bill would mean taxpayers paid to compensate these businesses for the money lost because of moves to protect public health. 'And that's going to make it very difficult for any groups – even governments – promoting new public health laws and regulations, that are intended to protect the public interest.' The briefing notes that, rather than this being a by-product of the legislation's overall goal, it 'appears to be the Bill's intention'. Seymour response Seymour accused Baker of 'alarmism'. 'What the bill actually says is that if a politician or government department wants to pass a regulation that infringes on your private property rights, they'll need to justify why. Inconsistency with the principles does not prevent any new legislation from being passed. All it requires is transparency to the taxpayer. That's not radical, it's democratic accountability. If a policy is justified, it will stand up to scrutiny.' 'The Regulatory Standards Bill will help New Zealand get its mojo back. It requires politicians and officials to ask and answer certain questions before they place restrictions on citizens' freedoms. What problem are we trying to solve?' Seymour asked. 'What are the costs and benefits? Who pays the costs and gets the benefits? What restrictions are being placed on the use and exchange of private property?' 'This Bill turns 'because we said so' into 'because here's the evidence'.'
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
After years of waiting, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu finally makes move on Iran
by Crispian Balmer for Reuters Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hopes a successful military campaign will secure his place in the history. Photo: - Iran once ridiculed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the boy who cried wolf for his constant public warnings about Tehran's nuclear programme and his repeated threats to shut it down, one way or another. "You can only fool some of the people so many times," then-Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in 2018, after Netanyahu had once again accused Iran of planning to build nuclear weapons. On Friday, after two decades of continually raising the alarm and urging other world leaders to act, Netanyahu finally decided to go it alone, authorising an Israeli air assault aimed, Israel says, at preventing Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. In an address to the nation, Netanyahu - as he has so often before - evoked the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust in World War Two to explain his decision. "Nearly a century ago, facing the Nazis, a generation of leaders failed to act in time," Netanyahu said, adding that a policy of appeasing Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler had led to the deaths of six million Jews - "a third of my people". "After that war, the Jewish people and the Jewish state vowed never again. Well, never again is now today. "Israel has shown that we have learned the lessons of history." Iran says its nuclear energy programme is only for peaceful purposes, although the International Atomic Energy Agency on Thursday declared the country in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years. Netanyahu, a former member of an elite special forces unit responsible for some of Israel's most daring hostage rescues, has dominated its politics for decades, becoming the longest-serving prime minister, when he won an unprecedented sixth term in 2022. Throughout his years in office, he rarely missed an opportunity to lecture foreign leaders about the dangers posed by Iran, displaying cartoons of an atomic bomb at the United Nations, while always hinting he was ready to strike. In past premierships, military analysts said his room for manoeuvre with Iran was limited by fears an attack would trigger instant retaliation from Tehran's regional proxies - Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon - that would be hard to contain. The past two years have upended the Middle East, with Israel hammering Hamas, after it launched a massive surprise attack of its own against Israel in October 2023, and then dismantling much of Hezbollah in just a few days in 2024. Israel has also sparred openly with Tehran since 2024, firing rocket salvos deep into Iran last year that gave Netanyahu confidence in the power of his military reach. Israeli military sources said the strikes disabled four of Iran's Russian-made air-defence systems, including one positioned near Natanz, a key Iranian nuclear site that was targeted, according to Iranian television. "Iran is more exposed than ever to strikes on its nuclear facilities," Defence Minister Israel Katz said in November. "We have the opportunity to achieve our most important goal - to thwart and eliminate the existential threat," Much to the consternation of Netanyahu, newly installed US President Donald Trump blindsided him during a visit to the White House in April, when he announced the United States and Iran were poised to begin direct nuclear talks. Netanyahu has locked horns with successive US presidents over Iran, most noticeably Barack Obama, who approved a deal with Tehran in 2015, imposing significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump pulled out of the accord in 2018 and Netanyahu had hoped he would continue to take an uncompromising stance against Iran, when he returned to office this year. In announcing talks, the White House set a two-month deadline for Iran to sign a deal. Even though a fresh round of meetings was scheduled for this weekend, the unofficial deadline expired on Thursday and Netanyahu pounced. One Israeli official told state broadcaster Kan that Israel had co-ordinated with Washington before the attacks, and suggested recent newspaper reports of a rift between Trump and Netanyahu over Iran had been a ruse to lull the Tehran leadership into a false sense of security. Trump - who said after the strikes began that Iran could not have a nuclear bomb, but that he wanted talks to proceed - has previously hailed the right-wing Netanyahu as a great friend. Other leaders have struggled with him. In 2015, then-President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was overheard talking about Netanyahu with Obama. "I can't stand him any more, he's a liar," he said. The man once known as 'King Bibi' to his supporters has faced a difficult few years and, at 75, time is running out for him to secure his legacy. His hawkish image was badly tarnished by the 2023 Hamas attack, with polls showing most Israelis blamed him for the security failures that allowed the deadliest assault since the founding of the nation more than 75 years ago. He was subsequently indicted by the International Criminal Court over possible war crimes tied to Israel's 20-month invasion of Gaza, which reduced much of the Palestinian territory to rubble. He rejected the charges against him. Polls show most Israelis believe the war in Gaza has gone on for too long, with Netanyahu dragging out the conflict to stay in power and stave off elections that pollsters say he will lose. Even as the multi-front war has progressed, he has had to take the stand in his own, long-running corruption trial, where he denies any wrongdoing, which has further dented his reputation at home. However, he hopes a successful military campaign against Israel's arch foe will secure his place in the history books he so loves to read. "Generations from now, history will record that our generation stood its ground, acted in time and secured our common future," he said in Friday's speech. "May God bless Israel. May God bless the forces of civilisation everywhere." - Reuters
RNZ News
5 hours ago
- RNZ News
Israel decares state of emergency amid Iran attacks
conflict world about 1 hour ago Explosions have boomed across Iran's capital Tehran overnight as Israel launched an attack on the country's military facilities. The attack has reportedly killed the chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and other high-ranking regime officials. Meanwhile a state of emergency has been declared in Israel, with air raid sirens ringing out as Iran vows to retaliate. BBC's Middle East editor Sebastian Usher spoke to Lisa Owen.
