Jeremy Nimmo against Radio New Zealand

This complaint relates to three articles published by Radio New Zealand in September 2025.

The 2 September 25 story was titled, Hamas rejects reported plan for US takeover of Gaza.

The 5 September 25 article was titled, Israel army says it’s struck in high-rise in Gaza City.

The 8 September 25 article was titled, Almost 900 people arrested at London Palestine Action protest, police say.

These were AFP and Reuters reports on major developments in the war on Gaza and a large pro-Palestinian protest in London.

Jeremy Nimmo complained RNZ breached Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Baland and (6) Headlines and Captions.

His complaint relating to the first story said it described “a further Zionist infestation of Palestine” which was an “ethnic cleansing and genocide by the bestial Zionists.”  He also said the headline was biased as it was the Palestinian people and not Hamas that rejected the takeover plan.  He said the second article, which reported an Israeli announcement that it had struck a building used by Hamas, was reporting a statement possibly known to be a lie by both RNZ and AFP because it “comes from Zionists.”

“As you know, these buildings are targeted to murder and immiserate as many humans as possible. To pretend that the Zionist lies could ever be credible makes you guilty of incitement to genocide.”

He believed the article lacked balance.

Mr Nimmo said the third article was inaccurate and not balanced.

“The article states "Britain proscribed Palestine Action under anti-terrorism legislation in July after some of its members broke into a Royal Air Force base and damaged military planes. This is inaccurate. Britain proscribed Palestine Action because Keir Starmer is a paedophile-connected Zionist who supports the Gaza genocide.”

He said it was also unbalanced as the group who supported the protest was only given one sentence and it was only in regards the procedural issue of the banning of Palestine Action.

The Media Council notes that while Mr Nimmo has the right to express his strong views on the Gaza conflict, his complaint was not advanced by the invective or by labelling politicians and senior RNZ managers.

He has not provided evidence that RNZ’s coverage was inaccurate or unfair.

The second article was a brief story based solely on an Israeli military statement and there was no comment from any other sources. On its own it could be seen as unbalanced, but this was just one story in the long-running conflict in which balance can be provided over time. 

Overall, the coverage reports the conflict, the resulting carnage and the comments of those involved in or observing what is happening on the ground.  While the opinions of protagonists are clearly contestable, there is no evidence of misreporting.  No inaccuracy has been established.

Each of these articles were part of the daily coverage of the Gaza war provided by news agencies which have a history of reporting major conflicts for a wide global audience.  We have no evidence that RNZ’s selection of agencies is questionable or that its coverage was biased.

Decision: No grounds to proceed.