In 2023 the Independent External Review Panel recommended that RNZ regularly assess aspects of its output against its editorial policy through the use of targeted pro-active reviews. 

RNZ accepted this recommendation and committed to completing at least one assessment every year.  

As well as using the assessments to help with editorial training for our kaimahi and sharing them with RNZ’s Editorial Standards Committee and interested groups, the findings will be published. 

This step is being taken because it is important that the public understands the steps we take as a public media organisation to ensure our work is always underpinned by fairness, accuracy, independence, respect, decency and diversity.  

What does the first assessment cover?  

The assessment involves an examination of RNZ coverage, on-air and online, of news involving Israel and Palestinian authorities and groups to determine whether RNZ’s coverage: 

  • Meets broadcasting standards 

  • Meets RNZ editorial standards 

  • Represents best practice for reporting which even those with strong opinions can accept as accurate and balanced.  

We also asked for the assessment to consider whether there was a benefit in re-stating or developing editorial policies and preferred words and terms related to this to improve RNZ coverage and its acceptability to all audiences.  

Why did RNZ commission this assessment? 

RNZ recognises that the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is a contested issue with strong opposing views and due to the complex nature of the conflict and the level of feedback RNZ receives, it warranted an independent assessment.  

What did it find?  

You can read the full assessment here

It is important to note the review found that overall complaints to RNZ over the period since the attack by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups on October 7 2023 and the subsequent Israel military actions in Gaza and other areas and the decisions of the Media Council and Broadcasting Standards Authority give no reason for concern that RNZ is acting outside its own policy, the Media Council Principles or the standards administered by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. 

Nevertheless, the assessment makes a series of recommendations that the author says may reduce complaints and reduce concerns among listeners and readers about RNZ’s upholding of standards and its reputation for accuracy, balance and fairness. 

Below we have outlined the recommendations, whether or not RNZ accepts, partially accepts or rejects a recommendation and the actions that are already being taken or are imminent to address them.  

Recommendation

Outcome

Rationale

Actions already taken or imminent

1. RNZ should recognise the Israel/Palestinian issue as a case of exceptional sensitivity for which audience expectations and response to audience concerns need planned management and additional care. Editorial staff should understand the possible consequences for balance of their assessments of news ‘relevance’ and ‘proximity’.

Accepted

An issue of such complexity and sensitivity warrants particular consideration to ensure kaimahi know a certain level of care is needed and that RNZ’s audience is getting the best possible coverage, driven by expert knowledge and strong editorial principles.
  • Stepped up editorial training throughout 2024, including Referring Up, Ask Me Anything (a discussion about a significant Media Council ruling on an Israel/Gaza interview) and Media Law.
  • Specific Reporting and Content guidance, created for internal use by RNZ kaimahi.
  • Regular, all-newsroom messages about the need to be impartial, balanced and accurate.

2: RNZ should document and regularly update its understanding of who holds ‘significant points of view’ and what these are in relation to the Israel/Palestinian issue. This should also note that views that are not significant (e.g. debunked antisemitic or Islamophobic conspiracy theories). Points of accuracy in terminology and regularly reported facts should be documented as editorial guidelines.

Accepted

Taking a methodical and documented approach to contributors and relevant facts will help RNZ maintain consistency, build a knowledge base, and create a more diverse credible pool of talent – ultimately strengthening its reporting.
  • The Reporting and Content document gives historic context and guidance around terminology; not just around phrasing and being cautious with language, but also educating kaimahi on the reasons behind it.
  • Creating a record of those who hold a “significant point of view” can be picked up by programme producers, to act as a master document for RNZ.

3: A sample of stories noting their leaning (tendency to support any particular newsmaker/point of view) should be taken at regular intervals on the Israel/Palestine issue.

Accepted

Ongoing content surveys could help to identify areas of editorial weakness, for example lack of balance, and then provide guidance for improvement. It would also be a tangible action RNZ takes to ensure it is upholding the highest editorial standards.

· Content surveys are on the editorial work plan for the second half of the 2024/25 financial year.

4: RNZ should inform its listeners and readers about the sources used for coverage of this issue and how facts are identified and assessed for newsworthiness.

Accepted

RNZ is aiming to be as transparent as possible about the issues it is covering and the decision-making that leads to its news coverage.

· RNZ’s Director, editorial quality and training is planning a series of columns, and potentially extending into podcasts in 2025. The series would explore how the news is made and some of the decision- making behind that news, particularly for significant and highly contentious stories.

5: Accuracy complaints that are upheld should be expressed in the clearest and most direct way possible with full acceptance of responsibility and no hint of defensiveness.

Accepted

The way RNZ handles complaints is another key factor in building trust. Fully accepting when we have done something wrong, moving to put it right, and communicating that in an open manner is part of improving that trust relationship.

· The new Complaints Custodian will be reviewing how RNZ handles complaints; that will include an open and non- defensive attitude in all dealings with the public and other stakeholders.

6: The radio conventions of attribution (use of the present continuous tense, implied attribution across consecutive statements, use of voice inflection to indicate that particular words are attributed etc.) could helpfully be explained to listeners on the website. A greater use of direct attribution in broadcast stories (in which inverted commas cannot be clearly heard) would help,.

Accepted

RNZ is striving for consistency across its platforms; this action would also help to improve accuracy for its audience.

· Explore with digital and broadcast teams the best way to use attribution to more specifically signal the source of the information, thus allowing the audience to judge its credibility more easily.

7: A section on the RNZ website discussing the sources it trusts and the reasons for doing so. This could distinguish, for example, between the BBC news operation and its many other programmes, podcasts and web publications.

Rejected

RNZ will take a more transparent approach through the acceptance of other recommendations. However, it would stray into difficult territory if it started to specifically single out and name other outlets, and their merits or otherwise. It would also be challenging to keep such a section updated and fair within the broader media environment.

 

8: RNZ should consider using its regular ‘complaint system’ notices (broadcast once every 24 hours with the hour shifting each day) to explain the ‘balance over time’ provision and possibly other specific aspects of the standards in brief statements that provide a basis for better understanding. Such a notice could say, for example, in addition to the usual ‘how to complain’ information: “Among the standards we uphold is providing balance for significant points of view in news and current affairs programmes over the period of interest in the issue. This means that not every item will cover all points of view. But over time we work to ensure they are heard”.

Partially accepted

We agree in principle but believe this is best delivered by other means rather than the on-air notices which are short in nature.

· Explaining how principles like ‘balance over time’ fit into the whole picture could be done using new explanatory content on the RNZ website (could sit close to the feedback portal on the website) and through the explainer series being proposed by the director, editorial quality and training. This would help to ensure discussion about the newsgathering process has the necessary breadth and depth of context.

9: Where issues with established partisan listenerships are covered and they focus on a single aspect of the story it would help listeners understand if an effort were made to indicate the limits of the story, the fact it is a part of wider coverage, and the reason a particular angle has been chosen.

Partially accepted

We would always look to provide context and further explanation where needed.

· Kaimahi training emphasises audience has the necessary context/background to understand issues.

10: Points of accuracy in terminology and regularly reported facts should be documented as editorial guidelines, e.g. references to Israel’s capital, the use of the terms ‘Palestine’ and ‘Palestinian’, the circumstances in which adjectives such as ‘illegal’, ‘terrorist’, or nouns such as ‘genocide’ are used.

Accepted

The greater guidance RNZ can give to its kaimahi, the higher quality its content will be.

Due to the long-running and complex nature of this topic, not all reporters, producers and presenters will have an inherent knowledge of the terminology – where in many cases the use of which can have greater meaning than just the word itself.
  • The Reporting and Content guidance (as noted against R1&2) will be the primary response.
  • These will be updated accordingly, and will sit alongside extra guidance for kaimahi if and when needed—for example in the event of a high profile legal action or a period of high intensity coverage.

11: RNZ should seek to express all matters of fact accurately, irrespective of whether they are material to the story. If they are not material to the story there should be editorial questioning of why they are included. Where stories are dealing with highly sensitive issues, particular care should be taken. RNZ should consider a stronger approach to accuracy by upholding complaints about mis-stated facts even if they are ‘non-material’.

Accepted

A high standard of accuracy is a fundamental editorial principle; any deeper understanding of the nuances around accuracy will improve the quality of RNZ content.
  • The Director, editorial quality and training will consider how to communicate the nuance around ‘material’ and ‘non- material’ facts, and the level of accuracy expected. As a default RNZ aims for a high level of accuracy regardless.
  • The Complaints Custodian will treat future complaints in line with this recommendation.

12: Although complaints about rounding or minor inexactitudes are unlikely to be upheld there seems to be no useful purpose served by writing stories in a way that is likely to trigger complaints such as these. Conventional terms such as ‘about’, ‘almost’ and more than eliminate the problem and the consequent need to defend as ‘accurate’ figures that are plainly not accurate. Similarly, it is possible to replace terms with more general terms (in this case ‘Israeli’ with ‘people’ and avoid complaints resulting from unnecessary efforts at exactitude in description). Editorial guidance should be developed to encourage the use of exact and clear terms so that such complaints can be reduced in number.

Rejected

This risks the unintended consequence of compromising accuracy standards.

Direction would have to be given to reporters and producers about how this might apply to not only original content they are creating on this topic, but also wire copy from third-party outlets.

One consideration is whether deliberating making comments more general or less specific could have a negative impact on achieving the highest standards of accuracy.

 

13: RNZ should develop a formal guideline allowing such rejection of anti-Semitic and similar complaints and explaining how this is appropriate given the Bill of Rights Act and the Broadcasting Act.

Accepted

An approach already taken by RNZ.

· Explore formalising this position along with an appropriate explanation.

14: RNZ should manage reputation risks further by:

  • establishing a guide for coverage of the issue including use of specific words, the need for more than-usual explanation of balance
  • proscribing informal or unscripted passing references to the issue in headlines, trailers etc. and the use of actuality about the issue in programme promotion trailers.
  • requiring all stories, including introductions and story angles to be checked by a second (senior) staffer before broadcast
  • including risks of statutory breaches or audience reaction in any formal RNZ risk register to ensure regular audit (if this is not current practice)

Accepted

These actions all help to provide kaimahi with guidance on a complex issue, a broader view of potential risks, as well as measures to provide the necessary checks and balances for the large flow of content coming out of the newsroom.

The majority of these points are already in place.

  • The coverage guide has been noted already alongside other recommendations.
  • It is standard– and expected—practice that a second, senior person has eyes over all content before broadcast or publication. This is embedded in the newsroom structure with bulletin sub- editors, prgramme subs and digital home page editors.
  • Headlines, trailers etc. are expected to meet the same editorial standards as other content, with further guidance from the Reporting and Content guidelines.
  • RNZ has an active risk register to capture such breaches and/or future risks.

What’s next?  

RNZ’s next assessment will look at the range and diversity of the sources used by RNZ. 

 

Feedback and complaints process