BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

A 1 News item covered the National Party’s conference in Queenstown and noted a clash between the Party’s policies and having their conference in Queenstown. The complainant stated the report breached the balance and fairness standards as it was biased against the National Party. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the Party was treated fairly and provided an opportunity to respond to the criticism. The balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance

The broadcast

[1]  A 1 News item reported on the National Party conference which took place in Queenstown that day. The segment was introduced as follows:

Host:          A party that cares about people, not just the economy. That's the vision of new National leader Christopher Luxon as his MPs plan the year ahead. From Queenstown, deputy political editor… reports on how they're going to deliver.

Reporter:    Nothing quite says out of touch with those in poverty than having your MPs come together in quintessential Queenstown.

[2]  The item then included excerpts from the Party’s conference and questions put to Christopher Luxon MP:

Reporter:    Despite the juxtaposition, poverty was the priority as Christopher Luxon galvanised his troops.

Luxon:        We care deeply about people. That's why we're here. It's not caring, and it's not kind just to consign people and write them off. We have to care and we have to go in and actually sort the chain.

Reporter:   National's traditionally traded on its economic acumen, but now the Party wants to diversify.

Luxon:        But it just can't be that we're the party that does the economic stuff.

Reporter:   And yet here we are. New Zealand's hottest Instagram destination.

Luxon:        I would just put it to you, you know, walk around Queenstown. It's not doing it easy.

The complaint

[3]  Benjamin Edwards complained the broadcast breached the balance and fairness standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice as the item included the reporter’s own political bias. This was by mentioning ‘the meeting was based in Queenstown then implicitly suggest[ing] because of the location, the entire national party therefore doesn't care about New Zealanders in poverty.’

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint under either standard:

• Balance: ‘The topic being discussed was the National Party caucus and issues arising from this.’ This was not a ‘controversial issue of public importance’, to which the standard applies. The item ‘is clearly discussing National Party policy and balancing material is not required’.
• Fairness: the comment was the type of analysis expected of the deputy political editor. The reporter also put this issue ‘directly to the National Party Leader, who gives his own viewpoint on the choice of venue.’

The standards

[5]  The fairness standard¹ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.² It ensures individuals and organisations are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. Whether a broadcast was fair will depend on its context.³

[6]  The balance standard⁴ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁵ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁶

[7]  We consider the complaint is adequately dealt with under the fairness standard. However, we briefly deal with the balance standard at paragraphs [12]–[13].

Our analysis

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

[9]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁷

[10]  We do not consider the broadcast resulted in unfairness to Luxon or the National Party. In reaching this finding, we identified the following contextual factors:

• 1 News is a current affairs programme aimed at an adult audience.
• The reporter provided political commentary on the National Party’s conference and shared her perception of the choice of location, being what she saw as a misstep between the Party’s policies and practices.
• Luxon was given an opportunity to respond to the criticism.
• Other parts of the broadcast conveyed Luxon’s vision and focus on people and poverty. Interviews included with party members also conveyed their ‘renewed momentum’ and perspectives of having a strong leader and leadership team.

[11]  Further, it is well established the threshold for finding unfairness is higher for public figures (such as politicians) who would be used to being the subject of robust scrutiny and regular media coverage.⁸ This broadcast did not cross the line of robust scrutiny.

[12]  We do not consider the balance standard applied in this instance. The standard requires reasonable efforts be made to reflect significant perspectives when ‘controversial issues of public importance’ are discussed in news and current affairs programmes.⁹ The broadcast discussed the party’s choice of conference location and the messages conveyed at the conference. Neither topic constitutes a controversial issue of public importance.

[13]  The complaint appears more directed at issues of bias in reporting. However, as previously recognised by the Authority, the balance standard is not directed at ‘bias’ in and of itself.¹⁰ Broadcasters, as a matter of freedom of expression and editorial discretion, are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
11 April 2022    

Appendix

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

1  Benjamin Edwards’s formal complaint – 31 January 2022

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 22 February 2022

3  Edwards’s referral to the Authority – 23 February 2022

4 TVNZ’s confi rmation of no further comments – 24 February 2022

¹ Standard 11, Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
² Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
³ Guideline 11a
⁴ Standard 8, Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice
⁵ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁶ As above
⁷ Freedom of Expression, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 6
⁸ Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21; and Frewen and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-146B at [13]
⁹ Guideline 8a
¹⁰ Drinnan and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-083 at [14]; Robinson and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-133