BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast on Radio New Zealand National’s Nine to Noon marking one year since the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The broadcast included two interviews conducted by host Kathryn Ryan - one with BBC Middle East editor Sebastian Usher, and the other with Sally Stevenson, an emergency coordinator with Médecins Sans Frontières. The Authority found listeners were alerted to alternative significant viewpoints during Usher’s interview, and Stevenson’s interview was clearly signalled as being from Stevenson’s perspective. Additionally, the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage and, while noting the balance standard is not directed at bias, no material which indicated bias against Israel was identified. The Authority also found it was not inaccurate to state 7 October 2024 marked ‘a year since the beginning of Israel’s retaliation’ and, noting the other media coverage of the conflict, the likelihood of a listener being misled by omission of any of the identified perspectives and context, was significantly reduced. 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, regarding a 1News football match preview which included a montage of crowd shots. The complaint was about a crowd shot where a Palestinian flag was visible. The Authority has declined to determine the complaint on the grounds it concerned matters of personal preference and did not raise issues of potential harm which required the Authority’s intervention.

Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined) Offensive and Disturbing Content

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under various standards about an answer during the DUKE Quiz which, in identifying an astronaut who ‘did not set foot on the moon’, stated ‘but then, did anyone really land on the moon?’. The Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination.

Declined to Determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Accuracy

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under multiple standards, regarding two news items broadcast on Labour Day 2024: one about a protest against a proposed sewerage project and the other about commemoration of New Zealand’s Land Wars. Noting the complaint was not about content in the broadcasts but content the complainant wished to see included, the Authority found it related to editorial discretion and personal preference, which is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.  

Declined to Determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all circumstances): Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Seven Sharp segment breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The complainant alleged co-host Jeremy Wells held a cucumber in a way that could be ‘likened to a man holding an erect penis’. The Authority found any innuendo in Wells’s behaviour was low-level and would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed regular Seven Sharp viewers, noting the segment’s light-hearted tone. The Authority noted adult supervision is expected during news and current affairs programmes and such content did not require an audience advisory.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

The Authority has upheld two complaints from Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH) about two items on ThreeNews reporting concerns about ASH, including alleged conflicts of interest and its stance on vaping. The Authority agreed the first item (26 July 2024), presented as a ‘special investigation’ into concerns about alleged links between ASH and the ‘pro-vaping’ lobby in Australia, breached the fairness, balance and accuracy standards: the reporter did not fairly inform ASH about the nature of the story or ASH’s contribution to it; ASH’s comments on the issues were not fairly presented, meaning the item was unbalanced; and, collectively, a number of statements and the presentation of ASH’s position created a misleading and unfairly negative impression of ASH. The Authority also found the second item (30 July 2024), reporting a school had ‘refused to allow’ its students to take part in ASH’s annual Year 10 Vaping Survey due to concerns about ASH’s stance on youth vaping, was misleading and unfair to ASH and its Director: the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, by failing to report important factual context which would have significantly altered viewers’ understanding of the item; and the single comment that was included from ASH failed to respond to the issues and unfairly portrayed ASH in a negative light.

ThreeNews, 26 July 2024 – Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Accuracy.

ThreeNews, 30 July 2024 – Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness.

Orders: Section 13(1)(a) - statement published on air, and online (to the extent reasonably within the broadcaster’s control); Section 16(1) - costs to the complainant $1,710.62; Section 16(4) - $3,000 costs to the Crown 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News item breached the accuracy standard by claiming a 24-hour period in October 2024 was Dunedin’s ‘wettest day in a century’. In the context of an almost 10-minute-long live broadcast reporting on a regional state of emergency, the comments did not amount to material points of fact. Their inclusion would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the overall item, as its purpose was to provide information to New Zealanders during a natural disaster. Furthermore, live reporting on extreme weather events carries high public interest, and this broadcast did not create harm at a level justifying restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a ThreeNews item breached the accuracy standard by claiming a 24-hour period in October 2024 was Dunedin’s ‘wettest day in a century’. In the context of an 11-minute live broadcast reporting on a regional state of emergency, the comments did not amount to material points of fact. Their inclusion would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the overall item, as its purpose was to provide information to New Zealanders following a natural disaster. Further, live reporting on extreme weather events carries high public interest, and this broadcast did not create harm at a level justifying restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief Radio New Zealand (RNZ) News bulletin, reporting regarding violence in Amsterdam surrounding a football match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv, was inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority found the brief, straightforward item did not amount to a ‘discussion’ of a controversial issue for the purposes of the balance standard; and listeners were unlikely to be misled by this single item given RNZ’s and other outlets’ earlier coverage of the events. By the time this item was broadcast, RNZ had already reported the information the complainant wished to be included in several other bulletins the previous evening and earlier the same day. Therefore, the Authority overall did not find any harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a 1News item reporting on violence in Amsterdam in November 2024 surrounding the Ajax v Maccabi Tel Aviv football match, breached the balance standard. The Authority acknowledged the violence in Amsterdam appeared to be ‘controversial’, but was satisfied that to the extent the item could be seen as ‘discussing’ the alleged causes or instigators of the violence, the item adequately reported the information the complainant considered was missing. 

Not Upheld: Balance