AZARIA BIALIK AGAINST STUFF

Stuff published a Telegraph story on 27 March 2024, headlined Israel scraps peace talks with Hamas after UN ceasefire vote.

The article reported that Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu cancelled peace talks with Hamas because of Hamas’ “unbending negotiating position.” It also reported criticism of Mr Netanyahu and some information about a British aid drop over Gaza.

Azaria Bialik complained the headline and story failed to provide context and painted a distorted picture of the situation. He said it was Hamas that declined the deal proposed by Israel. The story also did not mention the horrific attack on October 7 and portrayed Israel as the aggressor without putting any responsibility on Hamas.

Stuff said in its response that they had published hundreds of articles on the conflict, and this was just one about a recent key event. This story reported that the talks were ended by Mr Netanyahu when he recalled his delegation. The struggle to reach a deal was explained in the article which quoted the Israeli Prime Minister saying why he had pulled the pin on the peace talks.

Mr Bialik also complained about another story headed Federation of Islamic Associations of NZ food aid reaches Gaza. He argued that it had wrongly reported Israel had restricted aid when in fact Israel allowed a massive flow of aid and Hamas terrorists had been stealing it. He also said Stuff’s coverage of the conflict had consistently been biased.

The Media Council notes the first story appears to be a straightforward report stating that the Israeli PM had cancelled talks and withdrawn his delegation, blaming Hamas for its unbending position.

It clearly set out the Israeli position, so it was hard to see Mr Bialik's argument that it was biased against Israel. The headline reflects a key element of the story and there was no evidence that the story was inaccurate, unfair or unbalanced.

The Council also notes this was just one of many stories published on the Gaza war since October 7. There had been a lot of detailed reporting of the initial Hamas attack and what followed from that. It is not practical or necessary for publications to repeat the background every time there is a new development in such a long-running and intensively covered story.

As for the complaint that Israel has been falsely accused of restricting aid to Gaza, the Council notes that Stuff was relying on the words of the UN Human Rights chief who said Israeli had restricted aid to the 2.3 million Palestinians besieged in Gaza and that this may amount to a war crime. Israel controls all road access into Gaza and it has been widely reported that insufficient aid has been allowed through.

While Mr Bialik believed the reportage was biased and inaccurate there was no clear evidence to support that.

There were no grounds to proceed.