BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]  

The Authority has not upheld complaints alleging a report regarding vaccination decreasing chances of COVID-19 infection on 1 News was inaccurate and misleading. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the statements about transmission rates. Use of the terms ‘fully immune’ and ‘full immunity’ were not misleading in the context of the broadcast.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  On 14 November 2021, 1 News reported on COVID-19 vaccinations, specifically the decreased chances of infection with the Delta variant if people are vaccinated. The clip was introduced:

You have until the end of this week to get your first jab if you want to be fully vaccinated by Christmas. Let's work backwards from Christmas Eve, the second dose. It takes 14 days to give you full immunity, so you need to get that by December the 10th. With a three week stand down period between the first and second jabs, you need to have your first by November the 19th. That is this coming Friday.

[2]  A reporter discussed ‘how much less likely are you to get COVID or pass on the virus if you've had the jab’:

• If two people were both vaccinated, ‘the chance of us infecting each other is reduced by 200 times’.
• If only one was vaccinated ‘There's only a 10-fold reduction for me getting infected from that person because it relies on my vaccine alone.’
• ‘Put simply, vaccines reduce the chance of you getting infected, which reduces the chance of you infecting someone else. And while the jab provides good protection against severe disease, a small number of vaccinated people will still require hospital care.’

[3]  The presenter discussed how vaccination affects ‘your chances of ending up in hospital’:

Of the current cases in hospital, 59 per cent have not had any vaccine doses or are not eligible to get them yet. 23 per cent have had their first dose and just 13 per cent a double vaccine, but some have had those second jabs less than 14 days ago, so were not fully immune yet.

The complaint

[4]  Fransisco Brevoort, Edwin Pridham and John Stone complained the report was inaccurate. Brevoort and Pridham’s complaints concerned the broadcast transmission rates with submissions (between the two) including:

• 1 News did not provide a source for their information regarding claims that vaccination reduces viral transmission by 200x or 10x.
• References are needed to prove this was a factual statement.
• It was untrue and scaremongering to claim unvaccinated people are 200 times more likely to transmit COVID-19 than vaccinated people.

[5]  Stone complained:

• Claims by TVNZ that the COVID-19 vaccine provides ‘full immunity’ or makes you ‘fully immune’ are untrue and dangerous as this may lead to a false sense of security in the vaccine.
• ‘Neither Pfizer nor any manufacturer of COVID-19 vaccines in the world have claimed that their vaccine provides "full immunity".’
• ‘No medical or science experts have ever claimed "full immunity" was possible from COVID vaccines.’

The broadcaster’s response

[6]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold any of the complaints. TVNZ noted:

• The statement regarding rates of vaccination was sourced from the University of Melbourne and was checked with Professor Michael Baker, who agreed it was accurate.
• TVNZ did not agree that the information was misleading or inaccurate and noted it was obtained from reputable sources.

[7]  In response to Stone, TVNZ advised:

• ‘It is commonplace for a person who has two doses of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine to be referred to as ‘fully immunised.’
• Those who are fully vaccinated can still contract Covid-19 and the news item references this twice.
• ‘It is widely known and understood that being fully immunised with the COVID-19 vaccine helps prevent infection and vastly reduces the severity of the infection, not that it removes all possibility of contracting COVID-19.’

The standard at issue

[8]  The accuracy standard states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead.¹ Its purpose is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.²

Our analysis

[9]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[10]  In considering complaints, our starting point is the right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information. Equally important is our consideration of the level of actual or potential harm that may be caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.

[11]  Audiences may be misinformed in two ways: by incorrect statements of fact within the programme; and/or by being misled by the programme as a whole.³ Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts.’⁴

[12]  The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.⁵ Accordingly the first step for us is to consider whether the alleged inaccuracies constituted matters of fact or ‘analysis, comment or opinion’.

[13]  A fact is verifiable: it is something that can be proved right or wrong, while an opinion is someone’s view: it is contestable, and others may hold a different view.⁶ The answer will generally depend on context and presentation and it is crucial how a reasonable viewer would perceive the information.⁷

[14]  The following factors are relevant to determining whether a statement is fact or opinion:⁸

• the language used in the statement
• the language used in the rest of the item (there could be a statement of fact within an opinion piece or surrounded by opinions)
• the type of programme and the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter
• whether evidence or proof is provided
• whether the statement is attributed to someone.

[15]  The complainants have alleged two inaccuracies in the item. These concern:

a)  the stated rates of transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated people

b)  the statements to the effect that two vaccine doses provide ‘full immunity’.

[16]  In light of the factors identified above, we found both concerned matters of fact. The item was presented as a straightforward ‘explainer’ on vaccinations, used definitive language and included graphics. While the source material behind the broadcast rates of transmission made clear its status as opinion or analysis (detailing the assumptions behind the numbers), neither the source, nor these assumptions were identified in the broadcast. We accordingly found viewers were likely to perceive all of the information presented as fact.

[17]  The accuracy standard therefore applies. The next questions for us are whether the broadcast comments were inaccurate or misleading and, if so, whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. Each alleged inaccuracy is addressed separately below.

a) The rates of transmission between vaccinated and unvaccinated people

[18]  In the case of the broadcast rates of transmission, we are not in a position to assess whether the rates were inaccurate or misleading. We appreciate the calculation of such rates is based on multiple variables (including the prevalent COVID-19 variant, type of vaccine and time since relevant persons were vaccinated). Experts could reasonably reach different views on such issues and it is not our role to weigh in on that debate. Our role, under the standard, is to assess whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy.

[19]  In this case, we consider TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the figures, as they came from an article by Christopher Baker (Research Fellow in Statistics for Biosecurity Risk at The University of Melbourne) and Andrew Robinson (CEO of the Centre of Excellence for Biosecurity Risk Analysis at The University of Melbourne).⁹ This information was also checked and confirmed by the broadcaster with COVID-19 expert Professor Michael Baker, on whose advice they were entitled to rely. We have confirmed this was the advice received by the broadcaster from Professor Baker. We accordingly do not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

b) Two doses provide ‘full immunity’ or make people ‘fully immune’

[20]  Stone complained the broadcast inaccurately used the terms ‘full immunity’ and ‘fully immune’, suggesting the vaccine would provide full protection against COVID-19. However, the broadcast went on to discuss the chances of vaccinated people being infected with COVID-19 and the effect this would have on them. This included stating ‘while the jab provides good protection against severe disease, a small number of vaccinated people will still require hospital care’. This made it very clear that the vaccine did not offer full immunity from COVID-19. In this context:

• the phrase ‘[the second dose] takes 14 days to give you full immunity’ would be understood as meaning it takes 14 days for the vaccine to have full effect
• the phrase ‘some have had those second jabs less than 14 days ago, so were not fully immune yet’ would be understood as meaning the vaccine had not yet become fully effective.

[21]  Therefore, the item was not inaccurate or misleading in this respect.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
21 March 2022

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

Fransisco Brevoort

1  Fransisco Brevoort’s complaint to TVNZ – 15 November 2021

2  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint – 10 December 2021

3  Brevoort’s referral to the Authority – 10 December 2021

4  Brevoort providing additional information to the Authority - 10 December 2021

Edwin Pridham

5  Edwin Pridham’s complaint to TVNZ – 15 November 2021

6  TVNZ’s decision on complaint – 13 December 2021

7  Pridham’s referral to the Authority – 13 December 2021

8  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments on Brevoort and Pridham’s complaints – 1 February 2022

John Stone

9  Stone's initial complaint to TVNZ – 16 November 2021

10  TVNZ's decision on the complaint – 13 December 2021

11  Stone's referral to the Authority – 12 January 2022

12  Stone’s additional comments to the Authority – 12 January 2022

13  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments - 25 January 2022

¹ Standard 9 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
³ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 19
⁴ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, CIV-2011-485-1110
⁵ Guideline 9a
⁶ Guidance: Accuracy – Distinguishing fact and analysis, comment or opinion, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 64
⁷ As above
⁸ As above
⁹ Christopher Baker, Andrew Robinson “Your unvaccinated friend is roughly 20 times more likely to give you COVID” The Conversation <theconversation.com>; David Wu “Vaccinated NSW residents to be allowed into Victoria as the state records 2,179 COVID-19 cases and six deaths” Sky News <www.skynews.com.au>