Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East

Kiwis for Balanced Reporting On The Mideast New Zealand Media bias

February 10, 2010

KBRM appeals to Broadcasting Standards Authority about TVNZ programme

On Feb 9, TVNZ rejected our formal complaint about the ‘Bridging the Divide’ programme (see post dated November 24, 2009). Today KBRM sent the following appeal to the Broadcasting Standards Authority:

Before reading the complaint and response, we hope that BSA members will view the programme, as the imbalance is self-evident. Eleven minutes, including the critical first 7 1/2 minutes, were devoted to charges against Israel . The only rebuttal to these charges (other than a few seconds by ‘a man called Tony’) was one minute during an interview with a man who had no direct knowledge or involvement with the eviction and demolition in question! Nineteen KBRM members who viewed the programme all found it unbalanced. (While these people admittedly are ‘pro-Israel’, they are also rational, informed people who can detect bias if it is there.) Even ‘anti-Israel’ viewers would have to admit that the programme was heavily weighted toward condemnation of Israel , even if they felt the condemnation was deserved. Far from ‘bridging the divide’, this programme added to it.

In their response, TVNZ says the reason they didn't present a more authoritative rebuttal was ‘because the programme's approach was to show the Hanoun case at a personal level’. Yet TVNZ later admits that ‘nearly every move on the ground (is) politically charged’ and ‘the personal issue... mirrors the political issues for the area.’ Since it is the political issues that are the real focus, all the more reason the charges should have been answered by an Israeli spokesman, not by uninformed ‘men on the street’. By not consulting the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority or even local officials responsible for ordering the eviction, TVNZ did not ‘make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present (a) significant point of view’ that was needed for a balanced, factual current affairs programme.

TVNZ refers at length to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. That TVNZ relied heavily on this controversial, adversarial group for background information and statistics, rather than consulting a wide range of official and unofficial agencies, demonstrates again their one-sided approach.

TVNZ states that the ‘images that opened the programme ‘... were obtained from international news outlets, the United Nations, amateur footage and the Sunday crew... The veracity of the pictures has never been questioned.’ The international media have been duped in the past with falsified images and staged film footage. These clips should have been tested, particularly the amateur footage.

TVNZ writes ‘The reporter states in the item the Hanouns live in East Jerusalem — disputed territory — originally Arab (emphasis added), seized by Israel now the scene of Jewish settlement. This is a quick précis of the immediate history of the area. Jerusalem was designated an international city under the 1947 UN Partition Plan.’ Modern Israel's historical roots in the Middle East reach much further back than the 1947 UN Partition Plan and to claim that East Jerusalem is ‘originally Arab’ is utterly false. The Arabs did not conquer the ancient Jewish capital, Jerusalem, until 637 AD. Even claiming that in ‘the immediate history’ East Jerusalem was ‘originally Arab’ is inaccurate, as East Jerusalem's longstanding Jewish communities were driven out of the area in a series of violent and destructive Arab-led pogroms in the years leading up to Israel's independence in 1948. Jordan completed this ‘ethnic cleansing’ when it invaded Jerusalem in 1948.

In regard to the interview with Mr Kuttner, TVNZ says he was told ‘that the Hanoun case would be discussed ...that he would be interviewed about the politics of the region ...that this would include questions about the history of the dispute over land in Jerusalem and the West Bank’. However he was not told that the entire focus of the story had shifted from life of a New Zealand Jewish settler in Efrat to ‘the issue of ( Jerusalem ) settlers, evictions and demolitions... two Palestinian families, one evicted and the other whose house was demolished, and the personal impact of these actions on them and their families.’ Mr Kuttner, a member of KBRM and therefore a participant in this appeal, replies as follows:

I agreed to host TVNZ for the better part of a day in Efrat because I was told that the purpose of the programme was to interview and record the life of a NZ family who had settled in Israel. At no stage was I ever alerted to the fact that the whole thrust of the programme was to be changed from the original intention. I understood that political subjects connected to life in Israel would be raised and this was to be expected.

TVNZ's claim that I am a ‘spokesperson of an international advocacy group (KBRM)’ and am ‘well-versed with the media and how it works and... well equipped to withstand rigorous examination’ is ridiculous. I am neither a spokesperson for KBRM nor well-versed with the media. If I had known that TVNZ intended to change the main topic of the documentary to the so-called Hanoun saga, with me, a convenient token Jewish settler providing the only significant rebuttal, I would have declined to waste my time.

The fact is, I was misled as to the purpose of the documentary and despite subsequent events I was never warned or even advised that the real agenda was a ‘demolition’ job on Israel. TVNZ's excuse that ‘things changed’ does not detract from the fact that a whole day's filming in Efrat was undertaken not to present our family's reasons for leaving NZ and living in Israel (the reason I agreed to be involved) but to produce something which had nothing directly to do with me.

As a postscript I must mention that the TVNZ crew promised to send us a DVD of the finished product before it was screened. I had asked for this as I suspected that the final edited version would be mangled. The fact that I never received this DVD makes me think that they knew what my reaction would be — doesn't that say something?

One can't help but wonder why TVNZ cannot see the imbalance that is so evident throughout this programme. One also wonders why they won't consider producing a programme of comparable length that shows Israel's side of the story, or perhaps charges against Palestinians. We believe that such a programme is demanded by simple fairness, if not by the standards of the BSA. We also believe that a public apology to Mr Kuttner is necessary for the way they betrayed his confidence.