090514. Photo Diego Opatowski / RNZ. Radio New Zealand House. Photo: RNZ / Diego Opatowski
The Media Council has ruled that five complaints against RNZ had no grounds to proceed. Three related to coverage of the conflict in Gaza and related issues.
An article on October 2, titled 'Synagogue attack alarms UK Jews already dealing with rising antisemitism', was a story about an attack on a synagogue in which two people were killed, the latest of a rising number of antisemitic incidents in Britain. Adham Harash-Ghali cited this and four other articles to support a claim that RNZ's reporting was unbalanced. He believed RNZ disproportionately reported incidents in the West in which Jews were the victims while neglecting to report on hate crimes against Muslims and/or Palestinians in the same countries.
The Council appreciated Mr Harash-Ghali's acknowledgement that RNZ had probably not breached Council Principles. However, the Council was not able to review RNZ's coverage as he requested. It does not have the resources or mandate to mount a thorough and detailed investigation of the sort that would be required. Besides, it was not clear that there was any substantive evidence of bias.
RNZ, like most New Zealand media organisations, relies on international news agencies for most of its foreign news coverage and the Council was in no position to second guess news selection, which often depended on how well stories were covered and their news value relative to other major stories on the day. Selection of stories and their prominence is a matter for editors to determine.
***
On October 2 (and updated on 7 October), an article titled 'Kiwi teen on board Gaza flotilla ship intercepted by Israeli forces' reported on the interception of a humanitarian aid flotilla that was attempting to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. It focussed on the arrest or detention of three New Zealanders who were among the 500 people aboard the flotilla.
Emma Blackett's principal complaint was about RNZ's refusal to use the word genocide in its stories about the flotilla, Gaza and Israel, particularly since the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territories released its findings in September - that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. In response RNZ said its newsroom guide required caution to be exercised when the word genocide was used in its own voice. "RNZ will not use this term (in its own voice) until the International Court of Justice (ICJ), or a similar body, has determined such an action has happened."
Ms Blackett responded to this saying that a case against Israel on the charge of genocide was in process with the ICJ and RNZ could legally say Israel had been charged with or accused of genocide. The Media Council did not believe there was a requirement to refer to it in every story about this conflict. The Gaza war began more than two years ago and had been in the headlines constantly. It was impractical to detail all related information on the conflict every day there was a fresh development. Balance can be provided over time.
The Council did not consider there was evidence to show that this story and related war coverage breached its ethical principles.
***
Jeremy Nimmo complained about three articles published by Radio New Zealand in September 2025 on the Gaza conflict. These were AFP and Reuters reports on major developments in the war on Gaza and a large pro-Palestinian protest in London.
The Media Council noted that while Mr Nimmo had the right to express his strong views on the Gaza conflict, his complaint was not advanced by the invective or by labelling politicians and senior RNZ managers.
He had not provided evidence that RNZ's coverage was inaccurate or unfair. Each of these articles was part of the daily coverage of the Gaza war provided by news agencies, which have a history of reporting major conflicts for a wide global audience. The Council said it had no evidence that RNZ's selection of agencies was questionable or that its coverage was biased.
***
Stuff published an article on August 29, titled 'Govt spends $10m to fix national war memorial bells, fires only person who can play', which was supplied by RNZ. It reported that while the Government had spent a lot of money to strengthen the National War Memorial bell tower, the country's sole carillonist, who had played the bells for 40 years, could lose his job under a proposal to disestablish his position.
Mark Irving complained the article was factually wrong as "the Government had no involvement in this". The story made it clear the decision was made by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage and there was no suggestion that this was a political decision by the relevant Minister.
The Media Council did not believe there was an issue here. The Government funded the refurbishment, and the carillonist was also paid out of government funds. The story made it clear he was employed by the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, which is a government department. The Collins dictionary definition of "government department" is "a sector a national or state government that deals with a particular area of interest". The definitions of "government" include "a particular ministry in office". It was not shown that the reference to "government" was inaccurate.
***
An article on November 9, titled 'Could NZ plug into Australian 'drone wall' to keep China at bay?', was about an idea floated by an Australian defence analyst who suggested New Zealand could join Australia's proposed "drone wall" aimed at deterring China in the Indo-Pacific. The concept was set out in a paper published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
Ropata Fowlds-Hartley complained that the article amplified the views of a defence analyst and did not include other perspectives or dissenting voices. It did not include comment from New Zealand-based international relations scholars, civil society groups such as Greenpeace or Peace Movement Aotearoa, or Pacific or Māori voices concerned with regional militarisation.
The Media Council noted this was a news article focussing on the views of an Australian defence analyst. New Zealand defence policy, the size and capability of its forces, emerging threats, relations with Australia, the Pacific Islands, and major powers including the United States and China, have been the subject of debate for decades.
Clearly it was a complex subject on which there were many opinions. This made it impractical to canvas a range of views every time a new defence concept was floated. Defence policy and decisions are a long-running issue, and balanced opinion did not have to be provided in relation to every newsworthy development.
All five full judgments can be found here
