Adham Harash-Ghali against Radio New Zealand

Radio New Zealand published an article October 2, 2025, titled Synagogue attack alarms UK Jews already dealing with rising antisemitism.

This 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. To underline his point, he mentioned five incidents in the past three years which he could not find on RNZ’s website.

He asked the Media Council to review RNZ’s reporting pattern, its impact on communities, how it harmed the image of an already severely misrepresented people in mainstream Western media and review RNZ’s obligations to report in a balanced manner.

In response RNZ said while it was true that RNZ did not cover the specific incidents mentioned in this complaint, it was not true to say that it had published nothing about rising violence against Muslim communities.

It mentioned an article published on October 6, 2024, headlined Thousands around the world protest Middle East war as 7 October anniversary nears. This included paragraphs saying “Advocates have raised concerns over alarming antisemitic and Islamophobic rhetoric in some protests and counter-protests related to the conflict. Rights advocates have warned about rising threats against Muslims and Jews around the world.”

“Israel's supporters have expressed offence over some slogans that they say question Israel's right to exist as a nation. Pro-Palestinian protesters point to violence such as an incident in which a mob in California attacked an encampment of demonstrators in April.”

It also cited a story about the high number of social media attacks on the Muslim community in New Zealand and its coverage of pro-Palestine protests around the world highlighted violence against those protestors.

RNZ denied its coverage framed Jews as the “eternal victims”. It had reported extensively on the Gaza conflict, including details about the conditions facing Palestinians in Gaza; pro-Palestine protests around the world, including New Zealand, where spokespeople had been able to express their views about the actions of the Israeli Government and military; the various flotillas attempting to reach Gaza through the Israeli blockade; and the debate over the recognition of Palestine, and the New Zealand Government’s decision.

Its coverage had been balanced and fair and it took its responsibility to consider all viewpoints and the consequences of this conflict very seriously.

Mr Harash-Ghali acknowledged RNZ had probably not outright breached the Media Council’s Principles but said reporting on the protest against the Middle East War was not the same as reporting about rising violence against Muslim communities.

He added that the language was toned down when reporting on attacks against Muslims in comparison to reporting on antisemitism. Reports on islamophobia were qualified by making sure not to forget antisemitism, yet this approach was not used when reporting on antisemitism.

The Media Council understands the sensitivities of ethnic communities who have been and continue to be the target of violent attacks and hateful rhetoric.  The accuracy, fairness and balance of news coverage is clearly a matter of concern, particularly to people who have good reason to feel exposed and vulnerable.

The Council appreciates Mr Harash-Ghali's acknowledgement that RNZ had probably not breached Council Principles.

However, the Council is not able to review RNZ’s coverage as 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 is not clear that there is 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 is in no position to second guess news selection which often depends on how well stories are 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.

The New Zealand news media have extensively covered the 2019 Christchurch Mosque attacks and all the developments relating to that. There is a theme of absolute horror and condemnation of the attacks in all mainstream New Zealand reporting including that of RNZ.  When violence happens against Muslims in other parts of the world it is reported. It is not possible to draw any conclusions about the coverage given to all the incidents that have taken place around the world, but there is no evidence of bias on the part of RNZ.

Decision: No grounds to proceed.