Eric Mattlin and Olivia Coote against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3725
Council Meeting: 28 April 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle: Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Overview
1. Eric Mattlin and Olivia Coote complained separately about stories published by RNZ about the Gaza conflict. Both complaints concerned similar issues so will be considered together. Ms Coote complained about a story on 20 January 2025 headed A long-awaited ceasefire has finally begun in Gaza. Here’s what we know. Mr Mattlin complained about a story on 31 January 2025 headed Palestinian militants begin handover of three Israeli hostages in latest ceasefire deal. Both complained that different information and terminology used about the hostage/prisoner exchange for those on both sides of the conflict breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. Mr Mattlin complained more generally that the 31 January story was biased in favour of Israel. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. The 20 January article said three “hostages” were released from Hamas captivity in Gaza as a ceasefire came into effect. The deal would see the release of dozens of Israeli hostages in exchange for almost 2000 Palestinian “prisoners”. Israel’s military offensive had killed nearly 47,000 Palestinians since Hamas’ 7 October attack and residents in Gaza faced “dire humanitarian conditions”. The story included the names and photographs of the three female Israeli hostages released and information about the crowds who gathered to welcome them. In exchange, Israel would free 90 Palestinian prisoners, including 69 women and nine minors. It included information about how the agreement was expected to work and its effect on aid.
3. The 31 January article said Palestinian “militants” began handing over “three Israeli hostages” in Gaza in return for 110 Palestinian “prisoners” and included the names and ages of the hostages. It said the Palestinian prisoners included 30 minors and some members of Palestinian groups convicted for their involvement in “deadly attacks” in Israel.
The Complaint
4. Both Ms Coote and Mr Mattlin complained under Principle (1) that the coverage demonstrated bias in favour of Israel.
5. Ms Coote said the 20 January article humanised the Israeli hostages by profiling them and featuring their photographs, while there was no detail about the 90 Palestinians released. Many of the Palestinians had been held without charge for months and accurate fair reporting would name these people as hostages not prisoners.
6. Mr Mattlin had similar concerns to Ms Coote about the terminology used, and the humanisation of the Israelis being released.
7. Mr Mattlin complained that the story described Palestinians as “militants” but did not use “similarly charged” language for Israel. This selective terminology influenced the reader’s perception instead of presenting neutral facts. The article was inadequate in terms of historical context, describing the 7 October attack as "the bloodiest single attack on Jews since the Holocaust", but did not include details about Palestinians facing violence. It said the war was triggered by the Hamas attack but did not provide context about “decades of occupation, displacement and violence leading up to the attacks”.
8. The article described Israelis’ reactions as the hostages were released, emphasising their humanity, however the same narrative was not extended to the Palestinians.
9. The article said "Many have found their homes to be uninhabitable and basic goods in short supply," but didn’t explain how Israeli airstrikes, blockades and destruction of healthcare facilities had caused this. The story said "Israeli forces have stepped up operations in another Palestinian territory, the Israeli-occupied West Bank," yet failed to mention these actions were illegal under international law. Mr Mattlin suggested there was a reluctance to face “uncomfortable truths” – for example, he asked how often did RNZ inform readers that the West Bank operated under two legal systems, one for Palestinians one for Israelis?
10. RNZ said in its initial response that it was difficult to find names or personal stories of the Palestinians, but Mr Mattlin gave the example of a Palestinian woman who was shot dead with her child and said RNZ had never reported on this.
The Response
11. RNZ responded that it was reasonable to describe Palestinians detained by Israeli authorities as “prisoners” since they are subject to law and are held in prisons often on charges or sentences, while Israelis held by Hamas are “hostages”, held without charge for the purpose of bargaining.
12. RNZ said it was reasonable to describe those engaged by Hamas to fight against Israel as “militants” and their dress in the photograph confirmed that was how they depicted themselves.
13. One of the problems faced by media reporting the crisis was lack of access to Palestinian areas and this could make it difficult to provide a Palestinian “presence” in coverage. For example, in the 20 January story individual photographs of the Israelis being released were available, but the group photograph of Palestinian children may have been the best available option. If details about the Palestinians were not available they could not be reported.
14. In response to Ms Coote’s complaint that the article was not balanced as it humanised the Israeli “hostages” more than the Palestinian “prisoners”, RNZ said there was considerable information referring to Palestinians in the story. The balance standard did not call for an exact word count or similar number of photographs but that significant viewpoints were reported over the period of current interest.
15. In response to Mr Mattlin’s complaints about other aspects, including lack of context on historical matters, Palestinian living conditions and West Bank operations, media companies did not have to cover every aspect of a controversial aspect in every report. The main thrust of the two stories was to cover the latest developments.
16. In his final comment, Mr Mattlin said RNZ’s justification for referring to the Palestinians as prisoners missed the core issue. “The law being referenced is part of an apartheid system in which Palestinians are not subject to the same legal standards as Israelis. In many cases, they are held without charge or trial – essentially hostages under the guise of legality. These individuals are being detained because of who they are, not necessarily for what they’ve done.” Saying the people held by Hamas were hostages because they were held for the purposes of bargaining, ignored the reality that Israel was detaining Palestinians for political leverage.
17. Saying that Palestinian victims remained faceless “because we couldn’t find them” was difficult to accept when he had been able to find details.
18. The framing of the conflict seemed to go consistently in one direction. If it was acceptable to refer to Hamas as militants, why not acknowledge Israel’s ongoing oppression? Mr Mattlin said he wasn’t asking for all aspects to be covered in every story, just for reasonable, relevant context, not “cherry-picked facts that support one narrative”.
The Discussion
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. The Council considered the terminology used by RNZ in the story did not breach Principle (1).
22. On whether RNZ’s coverage was biased when it gave more details about the Israelis released than the Palestinians, again the Council can understand the concerns of the complainants. It is understandable that those on either side of highly charged subjects feel that their side of the story is not being put clearly, or that they would have preferred a different angle to have been taken.
23. The Council accepts RNZ’s point that there is more information available about the Israeli hostages, and the fact that there were only three Israelis and many Palestinians in each story means it is not surprising that there is more information about the Israelis. The Council notes that it would be interesting to know the stories of the Palestinians released if that information was available.
24. There is a significant amount of balance in both stories. For example, in the 20 January story it is reported that 47,000 Palestinians have been killed and that they face “dire humanitarian conditions”. It is said that Israel’s campaign has damaged health infrastructure and depleted essential supplies, and that Israel has been accused of “acts of genocide”. The 31 January story was shorter, and more tightly focused on the latest events in the conflict but still contained balance. Although it referred to the 7 October attack as “the bloodiest single attack on Jews since the Holocaust” it also said that Israel’s military response had killed 47,000 people and laid waste to Gaza.
25. These stories were in response to the most recent developments in the conflict and it was acceptable to focus on those events. Extensive coverage of background factors is not required under Principle (1) which states in part: “Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report.”
26. On balance, these were thought-provoking complaints, but the Council can find no evidence of systemic bias in the stories, which reported the latest developments in the conflict, using the information available.
Decision: The complaints under Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance are not upheld.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Guy MacGibbon, Katrina Bennett, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Alison Thom, Richard Pamatatau.
Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.