Eric Mattlin against Radio New Zealand

Radio New Zealand (RNZ) published an article on November 23, 2025, titled Israeli airstrikes kill at least 20 people in Gaza, local medics say.

This was a Reuters news agency report on airstrikes in Gaza which reportedly killed at least 20 people and wounded 80 more.  The story was based on information provided by medics and witnesses to the airstrikes. It also included comment from the Israeli military and Hamas who accused each other of violating a truce which was agreed to six weeks earlier.

Eric Mattlin complained that the story breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; (4) Comment and Fact and (7) Discrimination and Diversity.

“The article demonstrates a pattern of asymmetrical attribution with uncritical adoption of Israeli military claims, and a lack of context that affected how readers understood the events being reported.

“The article repeatedly uses distancing language such as “local medics say” or “Palestinian officials say” when reporting Palestinian casualties, implicitly casting doubt on the credibility of those sources. By contrast, Israeli military claims - including classifications of those killed as “militants” - are presented without equivalent attribution, scrutiny, or corroboration.

“This imbalance is not neutral. It privileges one party’s narrative while systematically undermining the credibility of the other, despite the fact that Gaza’s health authorities are among the most consistently documented and internationally scrutinised sources in conflict reporting.

“Further, the article refers to the deaths of “360 militants,” adopting Israeli military classifications without evidence or verification. In the immediate aftermath of large-scale airstrikes in densely populated civilian areas, such certainty is neither established nor credible. Numerous investigations by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UN OCHA, and
B’Tselem have consistently found that the majority of those killed in Gaza over time are civilians. The article does not acknowledge this well-documented context.

“This article concerns an ongoing and highly controversial international conflict involving profound power asymmetries. While balance does not require false equivalence, it does require that significant perspectives and relevant context be included. The article contains no reference to the military occupation, the blockade of Gaza, or the findings of major human rights organisations that Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes apartheid and involves serious breaches of international law.

“RNZ has argued that such context exists elsewhere in its coverage. However, Media Council principles apply to each individual item of content. The availability of context in other articles does not remedy its absence in this one, particularly where that absence materially affects audience understanding.

"While the article presents itself as straightforward news reporting, it incorporates contested military claims as factual assertions without clear attribution or qualification. Presenting disputed classifications as fact blurs the line between verified information and partisan claims, misleading readers about what is known, what is alleged, and what remains contested.

“The cumulative effect of the language used - questioning Palestinian testimony, adopting Israeli military framing, and omitting relevant structural context - contributes to the dehumanisation of Palestinian victims. While this may not be intentional, it reflects a systemic pattern whereby Palestinian lives are treated as less credible and less worthy of contextual explanation.”

In response RNZ rejected the complaint and sent Mr Mattlin its language guide to the Middle East Conflict, which explained why it used such terms as ‘militant’ and ‘hostage-prisoner’.

It added that RNZ had broadcast and published hundreds of pieces over the past two years, providing a wide range of views and the historical context behind the conflict.

The Media Council notes that RNZ and all other major New Zealand news outlets rely on international news agencies for most of their world news. Agencies like Reuters report for a wide and diverse international audience which requires coverage to be even handed.

The Council considers that this story was a fairly typical news report from Gaza. In accordance with standard journalistic practice it identified where information was obtained, and comment about the alleged ceasefire breaches was attributed to the Israeli military and Hamas. It also provided brief background on how the Gaza war started two years earlier.

Dealing with the complaint about terminology, the Council refers back to its decision on Mr Mattlin’s earlier complaint (No.3725) which stated: 

“We can find no fault with the word “hostages” being used to describe those abducted by Hamas on 7 October. The Council also believes that the use of the term “militants” to describe members of Hamas is defensible, given the NZ Oxford Dictionary definition of a person who is “aggressively active” particularly in support of a political cause. The use of the word “prisoner” is more complicated and the complainants raise some interesting points about the legitimacy of the arrests and the detention of the Palestinians, and the implications of the words used. However, one definition of the word “prisoner” in the NZ Oxford Dictionary is simply “a person kept in prison”, so the Council does not believe that the use of the word “prisoner” means that they are legitimately imprisoned. Both stories also note that some of the “prisoners” are minors, and in the 20 January story the text refers to Palestinian “prisoners and detainees” giving additional context.

“The Council notes RNZ and other New Zealand media outlets are reliant on overseas news agencies for their coverage of the conflict, and it would be risky or possibly even a breach of RNZ’s agreement with those agencies to change the terminology used. Having said that, it is RNZ’s responsibility to make sure Media Council standards are not breached in any material published, even if sourced from an overseas agency.

“The Council considered the terminology used by RNZ in the story did not breach Principle (1).”

The Council notes the story cited in this latest complaint is one of many that have been published on the Gaza War. This is a long and complex story which has been reported extensively, and it is impractical to expect every report to cover all the context and background.  Other stories have reported on the Israeli blockade and occupation, restrictions on aid and the findings of various humanitarian agencies that Israel has committed war crimes. It is clear that balance has been provided over time.

The Council saw no evidence of bias or that the coverage and terminology was unfair or asymmetrical. Attributing information to Palestinian officials or medics does not diminish their credibility and Israeli military framings do not go unchallenged. It has often been reported that the majority of those killed were civilians, with large numbers of women and children counted among the dead.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.