Muhammad Zaky against Radio New Zealand
Case Number: 3784
Council Meeting: 13 October 2025
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Radio NZ
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Errors
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On 22 July 2025 RNZ published an article on its website headed, ‘Gaza is not a religious issue’: Advocates split on government harmony accord. Mr Muhammad Zaky complains that the article breaches Principles (1) on Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (12) Corrections, largely through the failure of the article to show the wide-range and depth of opposition to the Accord.
2. Mr Zaky also complains about an RNZ article, Harmony Accord signed by members of the Jewish and Muslim communities, broadcast on Morning Report on 22 July 2025. This is outside of the Media Council’s scope.
The Article
3. This article describes the signing of the Harmony Accord by some of New Zealand’s Muslim and Jewish faith leaders in a government-led initiative to make a shared commitment to “peace, solidarity, and social cohesion”. The Accord will establish a joint council between the two communities. It is supported by the Governor-General who says that it is “the foundation of a peaceful and inclusive nation” and Ethnic Communities Minister, Mark Mitchell, who says that it signals “the beginning of work to support social cohesion”.
4. Attendees at the event commented that the Accord was an opportunity to “stand together against all forms of hate, including antisemitism and Islamophobia” and that it provided the opportunity for the two communities to effectively work together to combat hatred. Dr Abdur Razzaq, of the Federation of Islamic Associations (FIANZ), said it was a good start, and he wanted other faith groups and tangata whenua to be brought in. He added that nothing had been formalised and that “we have to consult widely with our community.”
5. The Minister was asked if anyone from the Palestinian community had been invited to the event, to which he responded that “the Accord is a living document, and any faith or ethnic leader would be welcomed.”
6. Representatives of the Islamic Council of New Zealand (ICONZ), a body representing Shia Muslims, and the Alternative Jewish Voices, who did not attend the event, expressed their concerns about the Accord. A representative of ICONZ, Dr Muhammad Sajjad Naqvi is quoted, saying,
“Advocacy that comes from faith can be a powerful force. We already work with numerous interfaith community initiatives; some formed at government initiative and waiting to really find their purpose…. Perhaps government should resource those rather than starting something new.”
The co-founder of ICONZ, Dr Abdul Monen said,
“Gaza is not a religious issue, and this has never been a conflict between our faiths. Our government needs to comply with international courts and act on this humanitarian calamity. That does not require a new council.”
Marilyn Garson, the co-founder of Alternative Jewish Voices, said,
“The government should be more focused on the legal actions it should take rather than creating another multi-faith organisation…. As currently formulated the council includes no direct Palestinian representation. That is not good enough.”
The Complaint
7. The original published article stated that “Muslim Faith Leaders” had signed the Harmony Accord. Following Mr Zaky’s complaint to RNZ, the article was amended the next day to say that “some Muslim leaders had signed.” Mr Zaky maintains that neither version is accurate, as only one Muslim organisation, FIANZ, represented by a single individual, signed the Accord. He says that the phrase “some Muslim leaders” exaggerates the level of Muslim support and implies a broad leadership consensus that does not exist.
8. Mr Zaky says that the story fails to describe the high level of opposition to the Accord from the wider Muslim community. He says that the mention of only one Muslim body, FIANZ, opposing the Accord, and the omission of the “well-documented opposition of 20 Muslim organisations, representing Shia and Sunni Muslims, and 18 scholars (imams),” renders the story inaccurate and misleading. He says that only quoting FIANZ, “a small Shia group”, omits recognition of the many Sunni Muslim representatives in opposition to the Accord, showing a lack of fairness and balance.
9. He says that despite his complaint to RNZ, it refused to publish any clarification or follow-up coverage of the statement issued on 22 July 2025 by Muslim leaders and organisations opposing the Accord. He also says that RNZ ignored the subsequent statement made on 31 July 2025 by 24 organisations “requesting FIANZ to withdraw and categorically rejecting the Accord.” Mr Zaky says that failing to quote or reference the 22 July statement and not covering the 31 July statement shows a further lack of fairness and balance.
10. Mr Zaky provided both statements to RNZ and says that RNZ’s refusal to update its publications and to publish a correction is a breach of Principle (12) Corrections.
11. Mr Zaky requests that RNZ publish both a correction and a clarification to address the inaccuracies and omissions he has identified.
The Response
12. RNZ says that the signing of the Accord was a significant news event and that the article accurately portrays the Government’s reasons for developing the Harmony Accord, the event and the comments of the signatories and two parties who opposed the Accord. “The story was not meant to be a detailed account of the divisions that exist within the Muslim Community.”
13. It says that, following Mr Zaky’s communication, it amended the phrase “Muslim faith leaders” to “some Muslim leaders” to indicate that not all had signed. The story makes it clear FIANZ is the only signatory to the Accord and that there is disagreement within the Muslim community about it.
14. RNZ included comments from two bodies fairly representing the existence and nature of the dissent over the Accord, saying “they do not need to add all parties in disagreement to the Accord to achieve balance, as long as it is clear to the reader division exists in that community”, adding it is entitled to exercise editorial judgement to determine which groups are quoted.
15. RNZ considered the statement Mr Zaky provided, outlining opposition to the Accord from Muslim organisations and faith leaders, but decided not to include the link, as it believed the same concerns were already reflected in the comments from ICONZ included in the article.
16. RNZ is satisfied that ‘Some of New Zealand’s Muslim leaders’ refers to a number of leaders or leadership groups, and in this case accurately portrays FIANZ, a representative body with eight associations across New Zealand. The story does not need to define a percentage of the community’s leadership within that description.
17. In the statement put out on 31 July by an alliance of Muslim organisations, RNZ says it is entitled to judge the newsworthiness of such releases and make its own call on whether to update or publish.
18. RNZ does not believe that this article or not publishing the 31 July statement contravene Principle (12) Corrections.
The Discussion
19. Firstly, the Council acknowledges the inherent challenges in ensuring fair and accurate representation across different settings – whether on the government committees or in media portrayals of ethnic and religious groups, and the damaging impact that can occur when this is done poorly. The Council also notes the importance of media considering the context of such matters, particularly when they are sensitive or contested.
20. The complaint cites inaccuracy on the grounds of the article not explicitly stating that only one Muslim organisation signed the Accord. It could have been clearer in the story that only FIANZ and the two Jewish bodies were signatories to the Accord. However, the Council agrees that FIANZ is a representative body and that the change to “Some of New Zealand’s Muslim leaders… have signed” acknowledges that others have not signed and therefore the article is not inaccurate.
21. Principle (1) says that “In articles of controversy or disagreement, fair voice must be given to the opposition.” As shown by the headline and within the article the key issue here is the dissent to the Accord. Following Mr Zaky’s presentation of the statement issued by Muslim leaders on 22 July, showing the significant level of opposition to the Accord, the Council was surprised that RNZ did not include this in the article. While there is some overlap between the statements of opposition in the article and the press release of Muslim leaders there were also unique concerns raised by the Muslim leaders. There is clearly a bigger story regarding the depth and breadth of opposition within the wider Muslim community to the Harmony Accord. However, the Media Council found that the opposing statement made by ICONZ does reflect some of the concerns of the Muslim community and there is a clear expression of the dissent to the Accord in the heading and the article.
22. The second statement issued by Muslim Leaders on 31 July, further opposing the Accord was distanced by time from the original article and therefore at the discretion of the Editor to publish.
23. Mr Zaky complains that information relating to the process behind the establishment of the Accord has been omitted from the article showing imbalance and misleading the reader. The Council does not consider it necessary to include such information to convey the key messages of support for and dissent from the Accord.
24. The Council does not find any breach of Principle (1) on accuracy, fairness or balance and therefore finds no grounds for any correction.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld under Principles (1) 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
Tim Watkin declared a conflict of interest and did not vote