Gregory Bouwer against the Otago Daily Times
Case Number: 3717
Council Meeting: 17 March 2025
Decision: Not Upheld with Dissent
Publication: Otago Daily Times
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Headlines and Captions
Discrimination and Diversity
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Discrimination
Headlines and Captions
Photographs
Overview
1. On January 6, the Otago Daily Times published a photograph of protesters holding a banner that read: “Billions to Israel to bomb children" under the headline US plans $US8b arms sale. The headline and photo led the cover page for the newspaper’s World Focus section and pointed to a story inside the section.
2. Gregory Bouwer complained under principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (6) Headlines and Captions, (7) Discrimination and Diversity and (11) Photographs and Graphics. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
3. The subject of the complaint is the photo on the cover page of the Otago Daily Times World Focus section. The cover points to an article on an inside page of the section.
4. In the photo, a large banner held by protesters reads “Billions to Israel to bomb children" in a similar font and colour to that
used in the headline.
5. The headline over the photo is US plans $US8b arms sale.
The Complaint
6. Mr Bouwer complained that the Otago Daily Times’s use of the image perpetuates a “blood libel” against Jews.
7. The newspaper could have chosen any number of images to illustrate the story, Mr Bouwer says. The choice of that photo suggests a position by the newspaper on the conflict in Gaza, Mr Bouwer says.
8. The choice of photo fans the flames of anti-Semitism and makes it more likely that trouble occurring elsewhere in the world, including Australia, will spread to New Zealand, Mr Bouwer says.
The Response
9. The Otago Daily Times said Mr Bouwer’s initial complaint was based on a misapprehension that the banner held by protesters in the cover photo was a headline.
10. The Otago Daily Times acknowledged that other readers had also mistaken the protesters’ banner as a headline. The newspaper published a letter to the editor from another reader the day following Mr Bouwer’s complaint. A note from the editor below explained that the words in the banner were those of the protesters, not the newspaper.
11. Careful consideration was given to the selection of the image, the Otago Daily Times says. It was the only available image that featured a protest sign relating to US funding. It was the most relevant news photo that spoke to the arms sale decision, which was the cover story, the Otago Daily Times says. It is balanced by a photo of an Israeli protest with the story on page 2 and through long running coverage of the conflict, the Otago Daily Times says.
12. It is a news photo used appropriately in a news context and Mr Bouwer falsely presumes that by choosing to use this image the newspaper endorses the protesters’ view, the Otago Daily Times says.
13. To anyone taking more than a cursory look at the photo it is clearly of protesters holding up a banner. While it is a strong statement, the protesters have strong views, the Otago Daily Times says.
14. Mr Bouwer conflates the words in the protest banner with “blood libel”, an anti-Semitic falsehood most commonly accusing Jews of murdering Christians, the Otago Daily Times says.
15. Israel attacked the Gaza strip in retaliation against an attack on itself and its citizens, and not to ‘‘bomb children’’ - but it has also, indisputably, killed many children in Gaza, the Otago Daily Times says. Demonstrators are entitled to argue their point, and the Otago Daily Times is entitled to cover their protest, the newspaper says.
The Discussion
16. Mr Bouwer complains under principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (6) Headlines and Captions, (7) Discrimination and Diversity and (11) Photographs and Graphics.
17. Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance states: “Publications should be bound at all times by accuracy, fairness and balance and should not deliberately mislead or misinform readers”.
18. The image in itself is a news photograph of a protest, representing the protesters’ views. This is a legitimate component of the paper’s coverage of the issue. It relates to the headline above, and the story inside that it points to. Balance is achieved in the content of the story inside with an image of a protest representing different views accompanying it and through continuing coverage of the Gaza war. The complaint is not upheld under (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance.
19. Principle (6) Headlines and Captions states: “Headlines, sub-headings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover”.
20. The headline itself, US plans $US8b arms sale, is factual and does not editorialise.
21. While the protest banner in the image reading “Billions to Israel to bomb children" could be mistaken for a headline at first glance, a longer look shows hands holding the banner. While it may have been selected for how it interacts with the headline above, it is not a headline. It is common to run images without captions on a poster-style page such as this, but in this case a caption would have added clarity. The complaint is not upheld under (6) Headlines and Captions.
22. Under Principle (7) Discrimination and Diversity, publications should not “place gratuitous emphasis on issues of gender, religion, minority groups, sexual orientation, age, race, colour or physical or mental disability”.
23. While the words in the protesters’ banner are designed for shock and impact, it is not false that children have been killed in the war in Gaza. Protesters can make this point, and media can report their protest. This does not amount to a “blood libel” - defined in the Holocaust encyclopaedia as the false allegation that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish, usually Christian children, for ritual purposes.
24. Mr Bouwer’s wider point that media must take care not to stoke anti-Semitism is fair, but it is the Media Council’s view that the use of this image is legitimate in the wider reporting of the Gaza war. The complaint is not upheld under (7) Discrimination and Diversity.
25. Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics states: “Editors should take care in photographic and image selection and treatment”. Given that multiple readers contacted the Otago Daily Times with concerns about a “headline” that was in fact a protest banner in the photograph, this principle warrants close consideration.
26. The Otago Daily Times described in detail their editorial process in selecting the image. The words on the protest banner, in the Otago Daily Times words “spoke to the headline on the cover” and was chosen for being “the most relevant” photo available. Thought was given to how the headline and image worked together as a package, but evidently not enough thought to see how it could confuse or upset readers. There is no reason, however, to infer an intention to exploit the similarity of the banner and headline style to express the paper’s view or introduce a headline by stealth.
27. The Otago Daily Times acknowledged that some readers had been confused by the image by publishing a letter the following day from another reader who had confused the protest banner with a headline. The paper added a note clarifying that the words on the banner are those of the protesters, not a headline and not representative of the newspapers’ stance.
28. The font and colour of the banner closely resemble the headline style of the Otago Daily Times. It is held perfectly square by the protesters, giving the potential for it to appear deliberately laid out on the page, as a headline. These are coincidental factors but could have been spotted and considered in the editorial process. The complaint is not upheld under principle (11) Photographs and Graphics.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld with dissent.
Dissent by Raynor Asher and Marie Shroff:
We think this complaint should be upheld.
The photograph of the protest banner is in the same print and has the same colours as the Otago Daily Times headline higher up on the page. Some members of the Council immediately assumed it was the headline when first looking at the page. So, as the complaints received by the Otago Daily Times reveal, did some readers. Those who did not take the time to look at the photograph closely would have thought that the Otago Daily Times, with its authority and reputation, was putting the banner headline forward as a fact, reflecting very badly on Israel and those who were providing it with aid. The ability of the layout of the page to confuse is confirmed by the complaints that the Otago Daily Times received, and that the Otago Daily Times felt it necessary to later add a note clarifying the words on the banner were the words of the protesters and not a headline and not representative of the newspaper’s stance.
We think that the failure to pick up the confusion prior to publication was sufficiently careless to warrant an uphold. We see it as unfair in terms of Principle (1) to allow a protest banner to be mistaken by readers as a headline. It was presenting, as a matter of fact, a most serious and unpleasant allegation, which was not based on fact, and was not the Otago Daily Times’s stance. We consider it to be a breach of Principle (11) which specifically states that editors should “take care” in the selection and treatment of photographs. We also note the sentence that follows which says “any technical manipulation that could mislead readers should be noted and explained”. Given that readers did confuse and could be expected to confuse the photograph banner and the headline there should have been at the very least, a note or explanation on the front page making it clear that the banner was not the Otago Daily Times headline.
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Rosemary Barraclough, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis,
Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Richard Pamatatau and Tim Watkin.