12-05-2025
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
