Pearls and Irritations

The very first principle of Radio New Zealand Charter, states unequivocally that the purpose of our national broadcaster is to be “…an independent public service broadcaster…” and “to serve the public interest.” Unfortunately, this principle appears to have been abandoned in its coverage of Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip that has ramped up since 7 October 2023. Time and time again RNZ has demonstrated that the word ‘genocide’ is a bridge-too-far, bringing into question its commitment to the public interest.

On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an interim ruling concluding South Africa’s case that Israel has displayed the intent to execute genocide was plausible. There are a range of views on whether this ruling went far enough and more fundamental questions about the limits of international law in addressing genocide. However, it would be difficult for anyone who had been watching Israel’s actions over the last few months to seriously deny Israel’s genocidal intent.

Anyone, that is, except our national broadcaster. On 28 January 2024, an RNZ News item claimed that the ICJ “…found Israel not guilty of genocide…” A number of listeners, including me, complained to RNZ, prompting a correction and admission that it had breached Standard 6 – Accuracy of the Broadcasting Act. However, rather than accurately reflect the ICJ ruling, RNZ instead corrected the wording to read “…that had not found Israel guilty of genocide.” Social media users have pointed out that the new wording would still likely constitute a breach of Standard 6 as the interim ruling was not aimed at determining whether Israel was guilty or innocent of genocide (a fact that the ICJ reiterated when making its ruling). I understand that some of these people are escalating their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Why then, was RNZ so reluctant to accurately report the ruling? Had nobody from RNZ read the ruling? Did nobody at RNZ understand the ruling? Or, was there a top-down culture at RNZ of downplaying crimes committed by Israel?

Based on evidence from both before and since 7 October, it seems undeniable that the latter is true. In a rare example of RNZ actually letting a Palestinian speak on-air, it included an interview with Tameem Shaltoni in a 7 November podcast. Before releasing this podcast, RNZ had edited out any mention by Shaltoni of ‘genocide’, ostensibly because it “would have stolen valuable time” from other interviewees. In the months since, Shaltoni received a leaked email from Mark Stevens, the Chief News Officer at RNZ in which he urged reporters to take care with “Contested definitions, for example, around genocide…” Of course, in practice this ‘care’ mostly looks like avoiding all mentions of ‘genocide’.

This flippant attitude towards Palestinian lives is one that predates 7 October. Last year, RNZ editor Mick Hall was suspended for allegedly making “pro-Russian edits” to news stories received from the wire agencies cited by Stevens such as Reuters and BBC. These edits included ones aimed at humanising Palestinians, a transgression that RNZ takes “extremely seriously”. The independent panel assembled by RNZ made a number of recommendations and pointedly did not agree that “all of the examples of inappropriate editing identified by RNZ were.. inappropriate.” However, as RNZ works through the panel’s recommendations, it does not appear to have yet resulted in any change to the way it has reported on the deaths of Palestinians.

Why then, is RNZ so reluctant to acknowledge the possibility of genocide in its Gaza reporting? Naturally, this is largely due to the role of these wire agencies. Anti-Palestinian bias is a feature of journalism across the West and as our newsrooms are underfunded, it is easier to simply repeat what their counterparts in the US and UK have already reported. Of course, playing stenographer to imperial propagandists isn’t necessarily consistent with the RNZ Charter. There is nothing “independent” or “in the public interest” about what it is doing. The way in which RNZ chooses to cover Palestinian lives cuts to the very core of the stated purpose of a national broadcaster and there are no doubt people who work there who are asking these existential questions.

I made a request under the Official Information Act, requesting evidence of these discussions which I hoped would shed some light on what is going on at RNZ. You can find the response to that request here. The approach by RNZ in answering the questions under their OIA legislative responsibilities is jarring, and not something you’d expect from a public institution tasked with communicating information. Several of the questions seem badly misinterpreted, referring to previous issues and reviews, rather than the matter at hand – RNZ’s coverage of the genocide in Gaza. The responses themselves are almost flippant, with multiple grammatical errors and an overly casual tone, perhaps indicative of how they treat such serious matters internally. Nothing of significance is offered in response as to internal guidelines, conversations or concerns – not even to say that there are none. Instead they ignore the queries altogether, almost answering as if they’ve been asked about an entirely different matter. By most readings RNZ will have failed to undertake a serious OIA process in relation to this request. It may now be a question for the Ombudsman.

None of RNZ’s editorial decisions, nor their response to the OIA, are particularly surprising. This is especially the case when considering the role of the wire agencies when determining how to frame the slaughter of innocent women and children – something they’ve now admitted to (albeit loosely, answering a question about guidelines with only the phrase “RNZ takes into account the style used by international news agencies such as Reuters”). However, these decisions are becoming increasingly untenable. In light of the ICJ ruling, many news agencies around the world are becoming more cautious and reflecting on whether they could ever be held accountable for their role in providing cover for Israel following future ICJ rulings. Even that paragon of American Imperialism, the New York Times is reportedly investigating a journalist with a history of violent anti-Palestinian content.

It remains to be seen whether RNZ intends to do any soul-searching about its own role.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT