An item on 1 News reported on the humanitarian crisis in Damascus following disruption of water supplies, caused by fighting between the Syrian army and rebel forces. During the item, the reporter said, ‘The outage came after the government attacked rebels holding the city’s main water source’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was biased and misleading by allegedly attributing blame for the water outages to President Bashar al-Assad, rather than the rebel forces. In the context of a brief item focused on the humanitarian impact of the conflict, the statement made by the reporter was a reasonable description of what occurred, and the omission of further information or different sources would not have left viewers misled or uninformed about the events covered by the item.
The outage came after the government attacked rebels holding the city’s main water source.
 Ian Kiddle complained that this item was inaccurate because the broadcaster attributed blame to President Bashar al-Assad for the water outages, when responsibility in fact lay with the rebel forces. He also complained that the broadcaster did not address the overall bias against Assad and the Syrian government, in its response to his complaint.
 The issues raised in Mr Kiddle’s complaint are whether the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.
 The item was broadcast during the 6pm news on 4 January 2017 on TVNZ 1. The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.
 Mr Kiddle submitted that the Syrian rebels controlled and blocked the main source of water to Damascus, creating the humanitarian crisis. The item, however, wrongly blamed President Assad for this crisis.
 TVNZ submitted that the dialogue at issue indicated that the government had ‘attacked’ what the rebels were ‘holding’. The word ‘holding’, as opposed to ‘defending’, implied a strategic action. The reporter’s statement therefore did not apportion greater liability or blame to one party over another and did not result in the item being inaccurate or misleading, it said.
 The primary focus of this item was the humanitarian crisis that resulted from the clashes and the UN’s response to the issue. The item informed viewers that residents of Damascus had been without a regular water supply for two weeks and reiterated the UN’s warning that it could supply only a third of the city’s daily water needs.
 In the context of a brief item (just over thirty seconds long), and based on the information we have before us, we consider that the statement made by the reporter was a reasonable description of what occurred and would not have resulted in viewers being materially misled about the events. Our understanding is that an offensive was launched by the Syrian government, in an area held by rebel forces, and that this conflict resulted in the water supply to Damascus being cut off. We consider this understanding was accurately reflected in the reporter’s statement and the item did not explicitly apportion blame for the cut-off water supply to either party.
 Mr Kiddle submitted that the broadcaster repeatedly presented a biased view of the Syrian war. He argued that this item in particular represented the New Zealand media’s overall bias against President Assad, and recommended the broadcaster refer to other sources to substantiate its claims.
 TVNZ submitted that this was a brief news story which aimed to alert viewers to the effects of war, not its causes or its political background. While the Syrian war ‘in its broadest sense’ was a controversial issue of public importance, this particular story was narrowly focused on the unfolding humanitarian disaster in Damascus, and the balance standard therefore did not apply.
 Mr Kiddle is primarily concerned with the media’s coverage of the Syrian conflict generally, which he considers to be biased against the Syrian government and its President. This item in particular demonstrated that bias, he said. Mr Kiddle argued that TVNZ could no longer rely on sources such as the BBC or CNN for its information, and that the alternative views of other independent sources should have been relied on.
 As we have said above in relation to Standard 9, we consider the item accurately reported the situation as it unfolded. Based on the information before us, our view is that the reporter’s brief statement about how the water supply was cut off was a reasonable description of the events leading to the water crisis and was not misleading. In the context of a brief item focused on the humanitarian issues (ie, the impact of the cut-off water supply), we do not consider that the item was biased, or that the omission of further information or different sources would have left viewers misled or uninformed about the events.