BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate and unbalanced for an item on Newshub Live at 6pm to claim there are two main ways to teach literacy in New Zealand when there are several. The item concerned the National Party’s proposed policy to make ‘structured literacy’ the compulsory teaching method in New Zealand schools. The Authority found the simplified statement was materially accurate, and any technical inaccuracy in the description of literacy teaching methods would not have affected the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole. In the context of a brief news item, focused on National Party policy, the Authority also considered the item to have included sufficient perspectives on the issue of literacy teaching methods.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance

The broadcast

[1]  During the 8 September 2023 broadcast of Newshub Live at 6pm, an item discussed the National Party’s proposed policy to require all primary schools to teach literacy using the ‘structured literacy’ method.

[2]  The broadcast was introduced as follows:

Host:               National is promising to bring consistency to the way our kids are taught to read and write if it wins the election.

Host:               Instead of letting teachers decide how to do it, Christopher Luxon is telling them: Use the structured literacy method. Political reporter Lloyd Burr has the detail. 

[3]  It included the following relevant comments:          

Luxon:            National will ensure that every child learns to read using structured literacy by making it a requirement at primary school.

                        …

National Education Spokesperson Erica Stanford MP: It's systematic. It's explicit. It is teacher led and directional and it's structured. And that's really important.

Burr:               There are two main ways of teaching literacy. Balanced literacy sees kids using cues like pictures, context, and the first letter to figure out tricky words, whereas structured literacy sees kids sounding out letters to figure out the word. 

Professor Brigid McNeill:    Structured literacy is better because there is a large evidence base showing that children who are taught via this method have better outcomes. 

Burr:               Currently, schools and teachers can teach reading however they like, but there's no stats on how many use the structured method and how many use the balanced method. 

                        …

Burr:               Labour is not on board with MPs dictating the curriculum.

Labour Education Spokesperson Jan Tinetti MP: It is actually soul destroying. We've had that before. We had it with national standards and it was absolutely soul destroying… They haven't thought this through. 

The complaint

[4]  GS complained the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

• The broadcast’s claim that there are two main ways of teaching literacy was inaccurate and ignores other science based and evidence based ways of teaching literacy.
• ‘Approximately 25% of schools are using structured literacy.’¹
• ‘Approximately 46% of schools are using the Better Start Literacy Approach (BSLA).² …BSLA is not considered to be a Structured Literacy approach by most people promoting Structured Literacy in New Zealand, and the Ministry of Education has been careful about the use of the term “Structured Literacy” when discussing BSLA because it is a term owned by the [International Dyslexia Association]’.
• ‘It is unclear what the remaining 29% of schools are using, but it is likely to be a variety of the Whole Word or Whole Language approach (which better matches what the news piece presented as “Balanced Literacy”),³ or Balanced Literacy (which is essentially the Whole Word approach plus phonics and other components).⁴’ There is also a ‘Structured Linguistic Literacy / Linguistic Phonics / “Speech-to-Print” approach’⁵
• ‘By presenting the claim that there are two main ways to teach literacy, described in the way they were in Newshub’s piece, Newshub has presented an inaccurate picture of literary practices, and has promoted National’s policy to adopt Structured Literacy as if it is the main alternative to Balanced Literacy, ignoring the other science-based and evidence-based options being used in New Zealand.’
• ‘The statements about Balanced Literacy and Structured Literacy were made by the news presenter…and therefore presented as if they were factual and objective.’ However, they presented a ‘biased view’.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) did not uphold GS’s complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘The Broadcast was not intended to provide an explanation of all literacy teaching methods.’
• ‘Explicit reading instruction informs the label of a structured literacy approach. We acknowledge that the International Dyslexia Association has trademarked the term “structured literacy”, however, it is also used more generally as a term to describe a variety of structured literacy programmes.’
• ‘The Broadcast focussed on the National Party's education promises. [WBD] maintains it was accurate to use the term “structured literacy” as this is how the National Party describes the education policy it intends to implement if elected at the upcoming election.’
• ‘It is widely accepted that New Zealand schools have followed the balanced literacy approach for teaching reading for decades. [WBD] does not agree that the audience was significantly misled by the reporter's reference to “two main ways of teaching literacy” in the context of this Broadcast which focussed on the National Party policy plan to switch from balanced to structured. The Broadcast did not claim that balanced and structured were the only approaches to literacy’
• The broadcast did not contain a material error of fact.
• While the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance, it also included several relevant perspectives on this, including from National Party leader Christopher Luxon, National Party Spokesperson Erica Stanford, Labour Party Spokesperson Jan Tinetti and Canterbury University Professor Brigid McNeill.

The standards

[6]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁶ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁷ It states broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead.

[7]  The balance standard⁸ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁹ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁰

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 demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.¹¹

Accuracy

[10]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[11]  The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.¹²

[12]  The harm that the complainant is concerned about is the broadcast leaving the audience with the impression that there are two ‘main’ ways of teaching literacy in New Zealand, when in reality there are several (as outlined in paragraphs [4] and [16]). Further, the complainant argues the two methods referenced are not the primary ways literacy is taught currently. The complaint considers this incorrect impression of the options for literacy training, was likely to mislead viewers regarding the merits of the National Party policy being presented. Specifically, it would incorrectly suggest the structured literacy method promoted by National to be:

• ‘the natural and main alternative to Balanced Literacy’
• the ‘only science-based/evidence-based alternative for teaching literacy’.

[13]  The first question for the Authority is whether or not the item was misleading. To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.¹³  

[14]  In determining whether the broadcast was misleading we have considered the following:

• The item was brief, lasting approximately two minutes.
• The broadcast was reporting on a proposed National Party policy that explicitly promoted ‘structured literacy’.¹⁴ While we acknowledge the parties’ submissions regarding the potentially different interpretations of this term, we do not consider the distinction material to our conclusions.
• Discussion from politicians and experts interviewed included use of the term ‘structured literacy’.
• The broadcast used the phrase ‘There are two main ways of teaching literacy’ which, in our view, indicated to the audience the two ways depicted were not the only ways this subject can be taught. 
• We also note the Better Start Literacy Approach (which the complainant refers to as used by approximately 46% of schools) has been referred to as ‘a structured approach to literacy instruction’ by the creators¹⁵ and a ‘structured literacy approach’ by the media.¹⁶
• The broadcast noted there were no statistics available regarding ‘how many use the structured method and how many use the balanced method’. The complainant has been able to provide piecemeal statistics covering use of some methods but we are not able to establish a clear picture of the extent to which various methods are used.

[15]  The broadcast was focused on explaining proposed National Party policy. It was not seeking to explain in detail the various pedagogical theories concerning literacy education, or to explore the statistics of how many schools use each.

[16]  In this context, it was not materially misleading to offer the simplified statement regarding the ‘main’ teaching methods being ‘structured’ and ‘balanced’. The reporter’s brief explanation of these methods allowed the audience to have some feel for what the politicians and experts interviewed were talking about. The particular details of and differences between Structured Literacy, Balanced Literacy, the Better Start Literacy Approach, Whole Word, Whole Language, Structured Linguistic Literacy, Linguistic Phonics and/or Speech-to-Print, and the extent of each method’s use, amounted to technical information that would not materially alter the audience’s understanding of the item or National’s proposed policy. In our view, the audience’s key takeaways from this item would be:

• The National Party intended to mandate one way of teaching literacy.
• The Party’s chosen method was ‘structured literacy’ which:
  
  (a)  involved sounding out letters to figure out a word
  (b)  some preferred it over other methods (noting the comments of Professor McNeill and National’s Education Spokesperson).
• The Labour Party did not agree with mandating structured literacy.

[17]  In these circumstances, we do not accept the broadcast can be reasonably interpreted as misleading viewers as to the merits of National Party policy (by suggesting ‘structured literacy’ – whatever its proper interpretation – was the natural, main, or only science-based method). As noted above, it was clear from the broadcast there were other teaching methods and that Labour did not agree with National’s approach (suggesting Labour must recognise other methods to have value).

[18]  For the reasons above, if there was any technical inaccuracy in the broadcast’s description of literacy teaching methods, it was not material.

[19]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the accuracy standard.

Balance

[20]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁷

[21]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have a ‘significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’.¹⁸ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹⁹

[22]  The broadcast concerned the issue of New Zealand’s literacy teaching methods and public policy concerning these, which we consider to be a controversial issue of public importance. While the item was short, interviews with several relevant figures meant the issue was ‘discussed’ during the item. On this basis the standard applies, triggering the requirement to present significant points of view. 

[23]  However, guidelines to the standard recognise that the requirement to present significant points of view is likely to be reduced, or in some cases negated, where:²⁰

• It is clear from the programme’s introduction and the way in which the programme is presented, that the programme is:
  
  (a)  not claiming, or intended to be a balanced examination of an issue
  (b)  signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective
  (c)  narrowly focused on only one aspect of a larger, complex debate.
• In the context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented.

[24]  As signalled in the segment’s introduction, it was focused on the National Party’s promise to bring consistency to the way children are taught to read and write, by mandating use of the structured literacy method. Interviews during the segment, and the short ‘explainer’ regarding structured and balanced literacy methods, would have enhanced viewers’ high level understanding of the policy being reported. However, in a brief news item, focused on National Party policy, we do not consider viewers would have expected any further detailed analysis of the various literacy teaching methods.

[25]  The broadcast included the perspective of the National Party through interviews with Luxon and National Education Spokesperson Erica Stanford MP. It presented the perspective of the Labour Party through an interview with Labour Education Spokesperson, Jan Tinetti MP. It also included an expert opinion by interviewing Professor Brigid McNeill of Canterbury University. In context of this broadcast, we consider the requirements of the balance standard have been met.

[26]  For completeness, to the extent the balance complaint may have been based on a lack of objectivity or perceived ‘bias’ in the broadcast (through comments serving to promote National Party policy), we note the balance standard is not directed at bias. As outlined above, it is directed at ensuring competing viewpoints about significant issues are available (where appropriate).

[27]  For the reasons outlined above, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
29 November 2023    

Appendix

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

1  GS’s formal complaint to WBD - 9 September 2023

2  WBD's response to the complaint - 21 September 2023

3  GS’s referral to the Authority - 21 September 2023

4  GS’s supporting information - 21 September 2023

5  WBD confirming no further comments - 9 October 2023

¹ Citing: Lifting Literacy Aotearoa “Quarter (25%) of NZ schools using Structured Literacy approach”  
² Citing: Spelfabet “Society for the Scientific Study of Reading conference: day 3”
³ Citing: Wikipedia “Whole language”
⁴ Citing: Wikipedia “Balanced literacy”
⁵ Citing: Nora Chabhazi “Issue 13: How and Why a Structured Linguistic Literacy Approach Closes the Gap Quickly” Dystinct
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁸ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1
¹¹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
¹² Guideline 6.2
¹³ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
¹⁴ NZ National Party “National’s Literacy Guarantee”
¹⁵ Better Start Literacy Approach “Better Start Literacy Approach”
16 “Medal win for pioneering children’s literacy project team” Inside Government (online ed, 8 November 2023)
¹⁷ Guideline 5.1
¹⁸ Guideline 5.1
¹⁹ Guideline 5.1
²⁰ Guideline 5.4