File photo. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly
The New Zealand Media Council has ruled that a complaint against an RNZ broadcast did not have the grounds to proceed.
RNZ published an audio recording on its website on 22 June, 2025, under the headline 'War in the Middle East: What the future might look like'.
The recording replayed Jim Mora's Sunday Morning national programme interview of an academic at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC on the bombing of Iran. The interview was recorded after a week-long Israeli bombing campaign against Iran and just hours before US bunker buster bombs were dropped on Iranian nuclear installations.
A brief audio clip of US President Trump saying: "I may or may not do it...but Iran is in a whole lot of trouble" was run in the lead up to the 16-minute interview.
During the discussion/interview the commentator speculated on whether a US bombing mission would proceed or be successful, how the Iranians might retaliate, whether the regime might be destabilised and wider potentially very dangerous geo-political consequences.
Martin Hales complained that RNZ breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance as the item was one-sided: "No counterpoint was offered, no alternative, no background nor discussion that much of the world, including USA, is angered by Israel's illegal attack on Iran and the potential implications thereof. Nor even, that the bombing was illegal. Nor that Iran is in accordance with IAEA whereas Israel is not.
"RNZ is NZ's national radio station, not Israel's. RNZ's pro-USA bias is always apparent but never more blatant than today."
In response to the complaint, RNZ said this was an ongoing story and there had been significant wider coverage since that 22 June piece. 'In a developing story such as this, it takes time for all perspectives to be covered.'
RNZ pointed to three stories that had been published since the attack, and noted that it had also broadcast interviews with the Ambassadors of Israel and Iran.
The Media Council said the interviewee had provided a measured commentary on the situation. 'Although he had a US military background, he provided an interesting and considered analysis of the situation just prior to the US bombing of Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities. It was not a one-sided commentary, and it did not parrot the view of the US or Israeli leaders.'
While it did not cover all the points canvassed by Hales, the Media Council believed this was an analysis at a particular moment in a fast-developing and important story where a lot of information was still unknown. It said it was not necessary to cover all the different angles in this one item. 'The Media Council has always held that in long-running stories or in situations where a story is evolving, questions of fairness and balance need to be judged over time.'
As balance was provided over time, the Media Council concluded that RNZ had not breached Principle (1).
The full ruling can be found here: Media Council - Martin Hales against Radio New Zealand.
