Eric Mattlin, Kathryn Dorgan and Simon Insoll against Radio New Zealand

This decision covers three complaints and involves two related articles.

The Articles

Radio New Zealand published an article on November 8, 2024, headlined Israel to collect soccer fans from Amsterdam after apparent antisemitic attacks.

The Reuters story reported aircraft had been sent to the Netherlands to bring back Israeli soccer club fans after they had been attacked in the streets in what authorities described as antisemitic attacks. It reported Amsterdam’s mayor as saying the fans had been ‘attacked, abused and pelted with fireworks.’ It also noted that antisemitic attacks had surged in the Netherlands since Israel launched its assault on Gaza following the 7 October 2023 attack on Israel by the Palestinian Hamas group, with many Jewish organisations and schools reporting threats and hate mail.

The article also reported comment by the Dutch Prime Minister who said he was “horrified by the antisemitic attacks on Israeli citizens” which he called completely unacceptable. There was also comment by the Israeli Prime Minister, its President, an Israeli newspaper and a brief summary of the conflict in Gaza.

RNZ published a second article the next day, November 9, 2024, under the headline Amsterdam bans demos after ‘anti-semitic squads’ attack Israeli soccer fans.

This was a follow-up story which recapped points reported the previous day. But it also included reference to video footage showing Israeli fans before the game on November 7 setting off flares and chanting “Ole, ole, let the IDF win, we will f*** the Arabs.”

It also carried comment from a senior Hamas official who said the mass killing by Israeli forces in Gaza and lack of international intervention to stop it “is likely to lead to such spontaneous repercussions.”

The three complaints

 Eric Mattlin complained the first article was one-sided and that antisemitism was a huge claim that should not be thrown around without any regard or fact.

“Why are these antisemitic attacks, yet Israeli supporters’ chants of 'there are no schools left in Palestine because all the kids are dead' ignored? Or why isn't the headline Israeli football supporter chant racist songs and violence erupts? “

Kathryn Dorgan complained the first article was inaccurate in many ways.

“It mentions 'antisemitic' five times and the events that occurred in Amsterdam over the weekend were incited by Israeli football supporters who sang songs with lyrics that included "kill all Arabs" as well as glorifying the killing of Palestinian children. There is footage of the hooligans attacking Dutch residents, tearing down Palestinian flags from homes and attacking a Moroccan cab driver.

“Protesters who stand up for human rights or are pro-Palestinian are not antisemitist, there are many Jewish people amongst them who are appalled at what is happening in the Middle East.”

She said the description of what Israel was doing in Gaza was unfair. She also objected to claims this was a pogrom and that the article was unfair and unbalanced.

“There is no fairness in this article as it is not impartial and does not give just treatment to the people of Palestine or to the Arab people who were beaten, threatened and terrorised by the football hooligans, rampaging and spitting vitriol around Amsterdam. There is no fairness in not writing about both sides of the conflict and the fact that Palestinians live in an occupied land and have now been bombed out and displaced from the small piece of land (within their original larger homeland) that they have called home for thousands of years.”

Simon Insoll complained about the second article. He said it was unbalanced because it used comment from the mayor about antisemitic squads of attackers that was not proven to be true.

“The article leads with false information in its headline, does not cover the history of violence which Israeli soccer fans are known for committing, does not cover the property damage in Amsterdam by Israeli football fans prior to this game and does not cover the taxi driver assaulted prior to this football game.”

The response

In response RNZ said the headlines of the articles were based on the quoted comments of Amsterdam’s Mayor and the Dutch Prime Minister who both referred to a recent antisemitic activity in Amsterdam. RNZ had a duty to report the comments of city and national leaders in its coverage of such events. The quotes were properly attributed.

Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted in his capacity as Israeli Prime Minister. It was entirely appropriate to quote the leader of a country whose citizens are involved in an international incident.

While some complainants may have preferred this article to include an Arab or Muslim perspective on the violent events reported, RNZ had reviewed the article and could not find any material inaccuracy or misleading content.

It also noted the follow-up article, published the next day, provided balance by reporting the Israeli supporters behaviour and chants as well as comment from a senior Hamas official linking the violence to the mass killing by Israeli forces in Gaza and lack of international intervention.

Decision

The Media Council notes that while the first report of the incident, lacked full context and information it was not factually wrong.  It was reporting remarks made by leading politicians, and there is no doubt that there was an attack targeting supporters of the Israeli Maccabi soccer team.

It was not wrong to report the comments of Amsterdam's Mayor, the Dutch and Israeli Prime Ministers, the Israeli President and an Israeli newspaper who talked of antisemitism and a pogrom.

The Council understood the complainant’s concerns. The November 8 story only reported Dutch and Israeli politicians reacting to a what happened without giving readers the benefit of knowing what the Israeli fans had been doing.

However, balance was provided in the following day’s story which reported that “Videos on social media showed riot police in action, with some attackers shouting anti-Israeli slurs. Footage also showed Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters chanting anti-Arab slogans before Thursday evening's match”.

This was not in the November 8 story, but the Council notes that the first news reports of dramatic events often provide an incomplete picture, and that context and other important information usually emerges hours or days later to provide a more balanced and accurate account.

Mr Insoll said there was more information published by Reuters on November 9 that should have been in the follow-up story.

However, it has not been shown any additional information was available early that morning when RNZ posted its story. This article provided crucial context and balance by reporting there was a verified video recording of the Israeli fans’ behaviour prior to the game.

RNZ relied on Reuters for this story and they were in no position to second guess the agency's coverage or critique it for reporting comments made by Amsterdam’s Mayor.  Those remarks were accurate.

The Media Council’s Principle (1) states publication should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance.  No inaccuracy was shown.  The principle provide for balance to be judged on a number of stories rather than a single report, and on that basis, there was balance. The Council was not able to take these complaints further.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.