Dave Moscovitz against Scoop
Case Number: 3902
Council Meeting: 12 October 2026
Decision: Not Upheld with Dissent
Publication: Scoop.co.nz
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Discrimination and Diversity
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Comment and Fact
Discrimination
Overview
1. On 6 July 2026 Scoop published an article by Gordon Campbell entitled On the Strange World of Israel’s Domestic Politics. It begins with a short paragraph about the continuing “genocidal carnage” in Gaza. The second paragraph starts “Thankfully, there are still some Jews who are appalled by Israel’s overt acts of state terrorism.”
2. The complainant Dave Moskovitz has complained the article breaches Principles (1) Fairness and (7) Discrimination. He says the sentence should have referred to Israelis, rather than Jews in general.
The Article
3. The article gives the author’s view of the “inward looking” focus of Israeli domestic politics especially in relation to Gaza and outlines the nature and political positions of the many small parties represented in the Israeli parliament.
4. The third paragraph of the article quotes a recent letter published by a group of prominent and distinguished Israelis giving a “final warning” about the danger the campaign of extreme violence against Palestinians was causing to Israel’s security; and that it is fuelling worldwide antisemitism. They demanded immediate action to “eradicate Jewish terrorism…” Both the author and the complainant are agreed that the article is an opinion piece, although it is not labelled as such.
The Complaint
5. The complainant Dave Moskovitz cites Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, specifically in relation to use of the word “Jews” in the sentence “Thankfully, there are still some Jews who are appalled by Israel’s overt acts of state terrorism.” He says it has no basis in fact, and it is misleading, and unfair to the Jewish community of New Zealand.
6. Under the discrimination Principle, Mr Moskovitz says the phrasing “Thankfully, there are still some Jews…” suggests that the majority of Jews worldwide are not appalled by state terrorism. Wrongly holding Jews responsible for Israeli government actions is a recognised hallmark of antisemitism. This has real consequences, as it encourages the treatment of all Jews as proxies for the state of Israel and so diminishes the safety of Jewish New Zealanders. There was no need to use the word “Jews” which could and should have been substituted by “Israelis”. Approximately half of the world’s Jews are not Israeli citizens. This was a gratuitous use of racial identity which has significant risks of harm to Jewish people in New Zealand.
7. Mr Moskovitz says he has no objection to robust criticism of the Israeli government or its armed forces. His complaint is confined to the sentence’s use of “Jews”, a worldwide religious and ethnic community, as the moral reference group for the actions of a nation state.
The Response
8. The complainant Dave Moskovitz cites Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, specifically in relation to use of the word “Jews” in the sentence “Thankfully, there are still some Jews who are appalled by Israel’s overt acts of state terrorism.” He says it has no basis in fact, and it is misleading, and unfair to the Jewish community of New Zealand.
9. Under the discrimination Principle, Mr Moskovitz says the phrasing “Thankfully, there are still some Jews…” suggests that the majority of Jews worldwide are not appalled by state terrorism. Wrongly holding Jews responsible for Israeli government actions is a recognised hallmark of antisemitism. This has real consequences, as it encourages the treatment of all Jews as proxies for the state of Israel and so diminishes the safety of Jewish New Zealanders. There was no need to use the word “Jews” which could and should have been substituted by “Israelis”. Approximately half of the world’s Jews are not Israeli citizens. This was a gratuitous use of racial identity which has significant risks of harm to Jewish people in New Zealand.
10. Mr Moskovitz says he has no objection to robust criticism of the Israeli government or its armed forces. His complaint is confined to the sentence’s use of “Jews”, a worldwide religious and ethnic community, as the moral reference group for the actions of a nation state.
The Discussion
11. This is a finely balanced complaint. Both complainant and respondent have argued their case comprehensively and persuasively. In relation to Principle (1), the complainant’s contention is that the sentence at issue and the use of the word “Jews” was unfair, inaccurate and unsupported by evidence. In relation to Principle (7) he says that it placed gratuitous emphasis on race by choosing the word “Jews” instead of “Israelis”. Mr Moskovitz feels understandably worried and potentially threatened by the sentence he has complained about.
12. The respondent, Mr Campbell, contends that on the contrary his article had multiple factual sources and references and was balanced. It was intended to point to growing Jewish opposition to Israel’s actions and direct blame where it should lie – with the Israeli government. These are both arguable positions on the interpretation of the article.
13. On balance the Council has concluded that there is insufficient weight to the complainant’s arguments to justify a finding of a breach of Principles (1) or (7). No evidence has been provided of clear factual error. The column as a whole did not denigrate Jews and was clearly critical of the state of Israel rather than the religious group. There are many Jews on both sides of the debate over Israel’s actions in Palestine. In discussing “some Jews” who are appalled by Israel's actions the writer is referring to the authors of a letter criticising “Jewish terrorism” in Gaza. Given that in the quote that follows, these senior Israeli critics frame Israel's violence in that way by referring to eradicating “Jewish” terrorism, it is not gratuitous for the author to use the same word in introducing the quote. Context matters.
14. The article expands on one aspect of this long-lasting story, Israeli political parties. It also provides a helpful insight into current domestic Israeli opposition to Israeli government handling of the conflict. It is a contribution to the debate and the sentence and word complained of are a small part of that. The expression “thankfully there are still some people who…” or similar is often used as a rhetorical flourish and is likely to be seen as such by many readers.
15. In our view it is unfortunate that the article was not clearly labelled as opinion, as required by Principle (4) Comment and Fact, to assist readers to understand its content in context. The Media Council considers that in future the Werewolf column, if it is opinion and not news, when published in Scoop, should be clearly labelled as such.
16. Both complainant and respondent were agreed that the article was opinion, and Mr Moskovitz did not complain on that score. A majority of the Council concluded that Mr Campbell’s regular columns in Scoop would be understood by most readers to be opinion. However, some Council members considered there was a breach under Principle (4) on the failure of Scoop to label the article as opinion. Their dissent is recorded below.
17. The sentence at issue, in its context in the article, is insufficient in our view to justify a finding of gratuitous racial profiling under Principle (7). We have sympathy with the complainant and recognise and acknowledge the reasons for his reaction to the sentence at issue. We think it is unfortunate that the journalist was not more sensitive to the possibility, on this highly controversial and complex subject, that the rhetorical flourish of using the formulation “Thankfully, there are still some Jews who…” could be misinterpreted by some readers. But on balance we cannot agree that it crosses the threshold of a breach of our principles.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld on Principle (1) or Principle (7) unanimously. The majority does not find a breach
under Principle (4) Comment and Fact.
Dissent by Scott Inglis, Jo Cribb and Deborah Morris
The minority would have upheld this complaint on Principle (4) Comment and Fact because the column was not labelled as Opinion. Principle (4) says: "A publication that is essentially comment or opinion should be clearly presented as such." In this case, a reasonable reader could easily be confused. This is particularly important given the sensitivity of the subject matter. We acknowledge the complainant did not cite Principle (4), but we feel it is such an important point that it warrants upholding.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Susan Freeman-Greene.
Andrew Chen and Judi Jones declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.