TRACY-MOANA CAMPBELL AGAINST THE NZ HERALD

The NZ Herald published an article on July 16, 2024, headlined They were told they were in a safe area. Then came the missiles. This was a New York Times story reporting on an Israeli air strike in southern Gaza where authorities reported 90 people were killed and another 300 were injured. It was a substantial story reporting on the carnage eyewitnesses saw in an area which the Israeli military had earlier declared to be safe for civilians.  It also included comment from Israeli authorities on their justification for targeting the area.

Tracy-Moana Campbell complained that the headline was deliberately vague/misleading and failed to state that it was Israel which ordered Palestinians into a ‘safe place’ and then bombed them.  Israel’s action amounted to a war crime called perfidy, yet the headline did not mention Israel.

The NZ Herald responded saying it considered the headline to be an accurate summary of the article’s contents.

It added that its editorial agreement with the New York Times did not permit altering of editorial content and said the complainant’s observations should be directed in the first instance to the New York Times.

The Media Council was concerned at the NZ Herald’s attempted deflection of this complaint. The NZ Herald is responsible for whatever it publishes and it always has the option of not publishing a story if it had any concerns about its content or presentation. Referring to its agreement with the New York Times is no defence and telling a reader to complain there in the first instance does it no credit.

As for the substance of the complaint Media Council Principle (6) Headlines and Captions says headlines should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover. This headline was compelling and emphasised a key point of the story.

The Media Council has always maintained that headlines must be read in conjunction with the story they cover and, in this case, the first line of the story refers to the Israeli strike.  Israel’s responsibility was obvious and undisguised and this was backed up further in the story where it reported Israeli authorities saying they were targeting a top Hamas military commander.

The Council did not consider the story or headline to be misleading. There were no grounds to proceed.