BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint a 1News segment about the announcement of New Zealand First’s ‘Kiwi Kids Grant’ policy, where a graphic of the New Zealand First logo above a ticked box next to ‘Party vote’ was displayed, breached the balance and fairness standards. The complainant considered the graphic indicated bias and encouraged people to vote for New Zealand First. The Authority declined to determine the complaint, noting the arguments raised did not identify any potential harm at a level requiring intervention.

Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Balance, Fairness

The Authority¹ has not upheld a complaint alleging an item on Morning Report lacked balance and was unfair. The item reported on the condition of student rental properties in Dunedin – that ‘students continue to live in flats that are colder inside than out despite meeting Healthy Homes Standards’, and ‘advocates are calling for action’ as a result. The Authority considered the item did not purport to be an in-depth or balanced examination of the adequacy of the Healthy Homes Standards, but instead focussed on a particular perspective (advocates calling for change). Listeners were therefore unlikely to expect a countervailing viewpoint in the broadcast. Regardless, the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of other viewpoints from other media, given the ongoing period of current interest. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Free Palestine Party (Palestine Free from the River to the Sea Party) election programme broadcast on TVNZ 1. It included statements onscreen: ‘Turn the tide for Palestine’; ‘Not a ceasefire… but justice’; ‘A right of return… to Palestine’; ‘Sanction Israel’ and ‘No sanctions – no vote!’ The complaint was that this ‘pro Palestine’ election programme was ’disturbing’, unfair, and gave a biased, ‘non-factual opinion’ of what is occurring in that part of the world. The Authority did not find any breach of the nominated standards or harm that would justify limiting the Party’s political expression. The election programme was clearly identified as promoting the views of the Free Palestine Party; the statements onscreen were clearly distinguishable as opinion and advocacy, rather than making factual statements; the advertisement did not seriously threaten standards of taste or decency, in the context; and the fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Offensive and Disturbing Content; Fairness), E2: Election Programme Advocacy - Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item saying ‘millions’ attended the late Iranian Supreme Leader’s funeral procession. The complainant questioned the accuracy of this reference and the broadcaster’s efforts to verify this figure. The Authority found the figure was not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context of an item focussed on the images of defiance and calls for vengeance at the procession. It also found the broadcaster had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, noting the reference to ‘millions’ of attendees was consistent with other reporting.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a National Party election programme that alluded to a reduction in crime rates under its leadership, which the complainant said was inaccurate. The Authority considered two statements made in the broadcast: ‘When National took over, our country was in bad shape,’ and, ‘By fixing the basics, inflation, mortgage rates and crime are all down…’ The Authority found the first statement was clearly an expression of the National Party’s opinion and political advocacy – and accordingly, the accuracy standard did not apply to it. The Authority considered the second statement was one of fact but that the National Party had reasonable basis for the claim, and reasonable viewers interpreting the statement in the context of an election campaign were unlikely to have been misled. 

Not Upheld: E1: Election Programmes Subject to Other Code (Accuracy)

The Authority¹ has not upheld two complaints under the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards about a Saturday Morning interview with the Head of Programs for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) discussing humanitarian crises in Lebanon and Gaza. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard because: the broadcast was focussed on the humanitarian effects of the conflicts; it was clearly signalled as being from MSF’s perspective; the audience also could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints (on the relevant issue and conflicts more generally) from other media coverage; and the broadcast was not required to present allegations surrounding MSF’s neutrality. Regarding accuracy, the Authority found the likelihood of a listener being misled by omission of any of the identified perspectives and context was significantly reduced, noting the broadcast’s narrow focus and other media coverage of the conflict. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under the offensive and disturbing content standard, about a PG-rated Hyundai Country Calendar episode where a farmer said ‘shit’ twice. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.

Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News report about the breakdown of peace negotiations between Iran and the United States breached the balance and accuracy standards. The complaint alleged the broadcast’s reference to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon did not contextualise Israel’s actions, thereby omitting Israel’s perspective and giving the misleading impression its attacks were gratuitous. The Authority did not uphold the balance complaint, noting the broadcast was not a discussion of the Hezbollah and Israel conflict – which was mentioned in passing. Viewers would not have expected to receive further context on that conflict in such a report. The omitted contextual information also did not render the item materially misleading.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief 1News update on the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States breached the balance standard. The Authority has consistently recognised the brevity of such broadcasts, providing updates on recent events, means they typically do not constitute a ‘discussion’ of issues for the purposes of the balance standard. Even if the balance standard did apply, it would not have been breached as the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other reporting, and the item did not purport to be an in-depth analysis of the conflict or the issues raised by the complainant.

Not Upheld: Balance

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast reporting the Government’s announced plan to ‘axe’ the Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho (BSA). The complainant said it was inaccurate to say the BSA had been ‘axed’ as it has not, and may never, happen. Noting the nature of the broadcast and conflict presented by determining issues associated with itself, the Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined.

Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Accuracy