Embassy of Israel against Stuff
Case Number: 3782
Council Meeting: 13 October 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Errors
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. The Embassy of Israel in New Zealand has complained about an article published by Stuff on July 4, headlined “94 Palestinians killed in Gaza, including 45 people waiting for aid, authorities say”. The article is from the Associated Press and reports on “airstrikes and shootings” that, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, killed 94 Palestinians, including 45 waiting for food.
The Article
2. The article reported the airstrikes hitting people in tents and in a school and said the Israeli military was yet to comment. It went onto describe an Amnesty International report that Israel and the US-based aid organisation Gaza Humanitarian Foundation were using starvation tactics and committing genocide in Gaza and denials of that by Israel’s Foreign Minister. It also gave some background about the estimated 57,000 Palestinian who have died in this war and how it began with the October 2023 when Hamas-led militants killed 1200 people in Israel and took nearly 250 hostages.
3. Stuff published the story written by Associated Press reporters as part of its syndication deal with the news agency. The same story, or similar versions by the same reporters, were also published by news media such as PBS, CBC, the South China Morning Post, The Times of India, and on The Associated Press’s own website on July 3 and 4. The airstrikes were also reported by global news media such as Sky News, NBC, and The Independent in Britain.
The Complaint
4. The Embassy of Israel complains the article definitively blames Israel for the death of more than 90 people without verification and within hours of the alleged incidents. The claims are attributed solely to the Gaza Health Ministry – a body governed by Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organisation in New Zealand.
5. The complaint falls under three principles.
6. Principle (1), Accuracy, Fairness, and Balance say publications should not deliberately mislead the public by commission or omission and that fair voice must be given in controversial articles. It notes balance can be achieved over time for long-running issues. The Embassy says the information blaming Israel for the deaths was not supported by independent verification, was issued by a “politically motivated, terror designated source” and was reported as facts rather than claims. The article omitted to say the statements were not confirmed and lacked “qualifying language”, such as “alleged by a NZ designated terror group”.
7. In its initial complaint to Stuff, the Embassy says “Attribution of grave incidents—especially civilian casualties—demands an elevated level of editorial caution… This is especially problematic when the article relies entirely on the claims of a source governed by Hamas”. It said no comment was sought from Israel’s embassy in New Zealand, reflecting a lack of editorial diligence. It notes that in a “parallel situation”, the Washington Post issued a correction in July after publishing claims about Israeli responsibility for civilian deaths near an aid site.
8. Principle (4) says a clear distinction should be drawn between fact and opinion. The Embassy argues “the article fails to distinguish between what is claimed and what is known”. Reporters could not have known some victims were “waiting for aid” without forensic evidence and independent verification.
9. Principle (12) says significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence and that such corrections enhance a publication’s credibility. The Embassy asked Stuff to add a clarifying note to the story as to the unverified nature of the claims and the Health Ministry’s affiliation with Hamas. Stuff declined, saying they have reported that fact in other stories. The complainant says Stuff is obliged to provide source context within each article.
10. In its final comment, the Embassy stressed that Stuff is responsible for whatever it publishes, even if it is syndicated from international news agencies. It argued that Stuff did not act according to industry norms that say where verification isn’t possible, transparency must be explicit. “Here it was absent”.
The Response
11. Stuff stresses the story was a syndicated story from The Associated Press and that all figures and claims in the story were explicitly attributed to the Gaza Health Ministry. It noted: “Attribution was clear in the headline and in the body of the text, consistent with journalistic norms during conflict reporting, where immediate independent verification is often not possible. The article also included reference to the Israeli military, which was approached for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.”
12. The editor says the Gaza Health Ministry is widely used by international agencies, NGOs, and news media as a source for casualty data in Gaza. Stuff has reported on its political affiliation before.
13. He pointed to a previous Media Council ruling on the Israel-Gaza conflict that in the absence of immediate and verifiable information it was legitimate to report what the protagonists are saying, with clear attribution.
14. The story was a news article that did not confuse comment with fact, as per Principle (4), and that Stuff did not believe a correction was required, as per Principle (12). “The attribution was present, appropriate, and consistent with both industry practice and previous Media Council guidance,” he concludes.
The Discussion
15. Reporting on war and conflict from afar is always challenging for New Zealand news media, which seldom have their own reporters in or near the war zones. They are typically dependent on reputable international agencies, have little ability to fact-check reports from half a world away, and are often contractually obliged as to what edits they can make to individual stories.
16. The article that is the subject of this complaint is a relatively standard report on the tragic loss of life in a war that has been the focus of intense global attention since late 2023.
17. The complainant is concerned the claims laid out in the story are presented as fact. However, they are all clearly attributed, in line with previous Media Council rulings. Readers are left in no doubt that the events described in the article are based on claims from a particular source and that Israel’s military was yet to respond to those claims. The story clearly states Israel blames Hamas for any civilian casualties in this war.
18. It’s true some claims in the article had not yet been independently verified, but that is not uncommon in fast-moving war coverage. It’s also notable in terms of this complaint and its reasonable concern about a lack of verification, that the ability to verify many of the events occurring in Gaza since October 2023 has been impeded by Israel’s refusal to let independent journalists into the territory. As the Council has previously ruled, “in the absence of immediate and verifiable information as to where the truth lies in a breaking news event, the media can only report what the protagonists are saying”. This story does just that, including comments by the Gaza Health Ministry, Amnesty International, Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Sarr, and US President Donald Trump.
19. Stuff’s decision not to include the Gaza Health Ministry’s affiliation with Hamas falls within the requirements under Principle (1) to provide balance over time. The Health Ministry’s political links are widely known. News media worldwide, including Stuff, have reported that fact repeatedly before and since this article. Its casualty data is widely used, as Stuff has noted. Terrorist organisations are routinely quoted in New Zealand media without them being labelled each time as to how they are designated under this country’s law. (The Council notes Stuff reported on the entirety of Hamas being designated as terrorist group in February 2024). Not every detail of the Israel-Gaza war or the background of every source – Palestinian or Israeli – can be expected in every story on such a complex and long-running issue. Readers were not misled.
20. The Embassy’s willingness to provide comment to New Zealand media is to be commended. The Council notes that it has the apparatus to ensure its voice is heard and the ability to give interviews or issue statements as a means of resolving any issues it has with reporting in the New Zealand media.
21. With this article, the complainant says the reported claims are disputed but makes no claim of inaccuracy. It is not reasonable to expect local news outlets to seek comment from the Embassy every time they run a syndicated article on every airstrike. And while the example of the Washington Post’s correction is a timely reminder of the care needed when reporting on disputed battlefronts, the embassy provides no evidence that this report is wrong in fact or that it bears comparison with that story.
22. These airstrikes in early July were widely reported by reputable news media worldwide without correction, as was the Amnesty International report. It’s worth noting some articles on these deaths specifically stated they were caused by “Israeli” airstrikes, something the Stuff article did not do.
23. Principle (4) covers the clear labelling of news and comment, and this article was clearly labelled and displayed as a news story from a reputable agency. Principle (12) only applies when a correction is required.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld under Principles (1), (4) and (12)
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah
Morris, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote