BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a segment on Breakfast where John Campbell interviewed technology commentator Paul Brislen about the alleged potential health effects of the rollout of the 5G cellular network breached the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found that, considering the clear perspective of the broadcast and the ongoing media coverage of the 5G rollout, audiences had sufficient information to enable them to make reasoned decisions about 5G. The Authority noted that it was not its role to determine the scientific accuracy of Mr Brislen’s statements and ultimately found that TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure their accuracy.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A segment on Breakfast featured John Campbell interviewing technology commentator Paul Brislen about the alleged potential health effects of the rollout of the 5G cellular network. Mr Brislen is introduced as a ‘tech expert’ and ‘former Telco’. The segment includes a number of comments suggesting 5G technology to be safe including those detailed below.

[2]  During the discussion Mr Campbell says ‘in short, they say it [5G] destroys the sort of DNA construction and it’s carcinogenic and a whole lot of other things?’ to which Mr Brislen responds:

None of that is proven in any way, shape or form. The World Health Organisation says, ‘this is probably the most studied single thing that they have ever looked at.’ 30,000 studies over the last 10-15 years. Not one has found any link between any kind of health impacts whatsoever and cell phones or WIFI or television or radio signals of any type. There’s just no link that they can find.

[3]  Mr Campbell then asks Mr Brislen ‘... [5G] uses higher frequency waves, than earlier mobile networks, right? ...’ to which he replies:

What Vodafone’s rolling out uses the exact same frequency they already have, 3.5gh so it’s not higher, they’ve not moved up the food chain at all. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will be auctioning off new spectrum later on, but it’s certainly nowhere near the really dangerous stuff. This isn’t ionising radiation like X-rays or gamma rays or any of that stuff, this is non-ionising radiation. So, it doesn’t accumulate so... the only effect we've seen from EMF… is a slight warming, very, very slight... so if you do feel a little bit warm, just step slightly away from your cell phone and it cools back down, it goes back to normal.

[4]  Mr Campbell then explains his position regarding the radio waves emitted by cell phones:

 I’ve done a lot of reading on this and I’ve looked at the World Health Organisation and I’ve looked at all the studies on all the Gs and I feel reassured by it but of course people say ‘ah yes but you would say that, because you’re in the radiation business, television or you work for Telco’ and we all remember how tobacco companies for example masked the harm they were doing and lied about it and dissembled and deceived. But you are here saying there is no meaningful or persuasive scientific evidence that people have to worry?

[5]  Mr Brislen responds: ‘No, none at all… There just isn’t any link [between waves emitted by cell phones and cancer].’

[6]  The item was broadcast on Breakfast on 2 August 2019 on TVNZ 1. In considering these complaints, we have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

The complaint

[7]  Maree Guenole complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice and provided lengthy submissions which the Authority has carefully considered. We have set out below what we consider are the key arguments under the standards raised:

• Mr Brislen is not qualified to give an opinion on the safety of 5G technology.
• The safety of 5G technology is unproven.
• The interview followed ‘a predetermined narrative that was shaped to assert a line of thought that the danger of fifth generation technology was comparable to the dangers of drinking coffee.’
• The segment did not feature the presentation of an alternative point of view and was presented in a manner designed to embed the notion that the information being presented was trustworthy and ‘anything else may be dismissed as unscientific’.
• Mr Brislen’s assertions are in concert with the Ministry of Health and aligned with the national strategy by government to roll out this technology for reasons of sustainability and resilience, as well as economic imperatives.
• ‘The expanding research and data analysis is telling the New Zealand community that there are matters to consider regarding the implementation of this technology.’
• There are ‘thousands of studies’ detailing the biological effects of non-ionising radiation and Ms Guenole referred to some of these studies as well as the result of a Senate Hearing of the Commerce Science and Transportation Committee Hearing in the United States of America and a large number of articles, websites and YouTube videos in her submissions to support her position regarding the risks associated with 5G.  

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  TVNZ submitted the broadcast did not breach the nominated standards for the following reasons:

Balance

• The roll-out of 5G technology may be a controversial issue of public importance.
• It is an established principle of this standard that programmes can portray an issue from a particular perspective as long as this is clearly signalled in the programme. This occurred in the Breakfast item, Mr Brislen is clearly identified as a ‘tech expert’ and former Telco man.
• In any case, other viewpoints were recognised in the discussion through the comments from Mr Campbell, including that:
  • ‘If you put 5G into a Facebook or Google search you might be forgiven for thinking it’s very bad news, carcinogenic, the internet is awash with junk science about the technology, some of it very frightening, claims it causes cancer.’
  • ‘They say it [5G] destroys the sort of DNA construction and [it’s] carcinogenic and a whole lot of other things.’
• This signals to viewers that other viewpoints exist. Balance cannot be measured by a stopwatch: it is sufficient that significant viewpoints are adequately represented.

Accuracy

• Mr Brislen is representing a valid viewpoint, which is also ‘held by credible institutions’.
• TVNZ cited multiple scientific reports in support of its position.
• Mr Brislen’s viewpoint is clearly presented as the perspective of a ‘tech expert who has worked for Telco’ and this is made clear in the interview.

The relevant standards

[9]  The balance standard (Standard 8) states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs and factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.

[10]  The accuracy standard (Standard 9) states that 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. The purpose of this standard is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹

Our analysis

[11]  Our consideration of this complaint starts with consideration of the right to freedom of expression and the important role it plays in a liberal democratic society. The right to freedom of expression, includes 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 interfere and uphold complaints where the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.

Balance

[12]  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. The subject matter must be an issue ‘of public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.²

[13]  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’.³ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.⁴

[14]  There is no question that Breakfast is a news and current affairs programme. We also consider the introduction of 5G to New Zealand to be a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of this standard. Finally, we consider this conversation between Mr Campbell and Mr Brislen amounted to a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of this standard. Accordingly, the balance standard applies to this broadcast.

[15]  The assessment of whether a reasonable range of other perspectives has been presented includes consideration of a number of factors, including:⁵ 

• whether the programme purported to be a balanced examination of an issue
• whether the programme was clearly signalled as approaching a topic from a particular perspective
• whether the programme was narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger, complex debate
• whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage in other media.

[16]  Ultimately, the objective is to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion (which is important to the operation of an open and democratic society).⁶ We consider viewers were able to do so on this occasion.

[17]  During the introduction to the segment Mr Campbell clearly established that there was still a level of uncertainty and low risk surrounding 5G ‘… the World Health Organisation, has mostly dismissed that or said there is a low risk and no one’s sure how much…’ Mr Campbell then introduced Mr Brislen as a ‘former Telco’ making viewers aware of the fact Mr Brislen has worked in the telecommunications industry. The segment then focussed on the perspective of Mr Brislen as a technology commentator.

[18]  We agree that, while Mr Campbell raised the existence of contrary views in his questioning, these were immediately dismissed. However, the rollout of 5G in New Zealand was an ongoing issue that was consistently discussed in the media in 2019.⁷ We do not consider that all points of view must be given equal time in every broadcast.

[19]  The standard allows for balance to be achieved over time ‘within the period of current interest’.⁸ TVNZ itself covered and discussed the opposition and concern regarding 5G extensively with broadcasts on 1 News, Seven Sharp and online news articles within the period of current interest.⁹ We therefore find that viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views regarding the safety of 5G.

[20]  Considering the introduction of the broadcast, the segment’s clearly established perspective, the level of coverage 5G received and the ongoing nature of the issue, we find that viewers were able to arrive at informed and reasoned opinions.

[21]  Therefore we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[22]  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. Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts.’¹⁰ Programmes may be misleading by omission.¹¹ 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.¹²

[23]  We note that our role is not to determine the scientific accuracy of statements regarding the safety of 5G. Rather, our role is to determine whether the accuracy standard applied to this broadcast and, if so, whether TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure that:

• all material statements of fact were accurate; and
• the interview did not mislead viewers.

[24]  The standard does not apply to statements of comment, analysis or opinion. An opinion is someone’s view. It is contestable, and others may hold a different view.¹³ However, it is not always clear whether a statement is an assertion of fact or opinion. This will depend on the context and presentation of the statements and how a reasonable viewer would perceive them.¹⁴

[25]  Given their significance to the broadcast topic, we consider Mr Brislen’s statements are certainly ‘material’. As to whether they are fact or opinion, while Mr Brislen used a range of opinion, analysis and fact during the broadcast, on balance (and considering the guidance in the Codebook),¹⁵ we find all of the statements in issue to be statements of fact. A reasonable viewer would have been likely to perceive the statements as fact, given:

• the definitive language used by Mr Brislen (he has not prefaced the comments with ‘I think’ to signal he is expressing an opinion)
• the type of programme and the occupation/expertise of Mr Brislen
• the scientific subject matter of the broadcast.

[26]  The next question is whether TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of Mr Brislen’s statements. We find the following factors relevant in our determination:

• Source of the material broadcast:¹⁶ While Mr Brislen does not have a background in science, he is the former chief executive of the Telecommunications Users Association of NZ and a long time, well-known technology commentator. We consider that Mr Brislen is an authoritative source.
• The existence (or not) of any obvious reason to question the programme’s accuracy:¹⁷ We do not see any obvious reason to question Mr Brislen’s statements. His position is broadly consistent with the Ministry of Health’s¹⁸ and the World Health Organisation’s positions on 5G.¹⁹
• The extent to which the broadcaster was reasonably capable of determining accuracy:²⁰ It is reasonable to conclude that it is beyond the broadcaster’s expertise to determine the accuracy of specialist scientific issues raised with respect to 5G and radio waves.

[27]  Overall, taking into account the factors set out in paragraph [26] above, we find that TVNZ made reasonable efforts to ensure that this segment was accurate in relation to the material points of fact and that it was unlikely to mislead viewers. Therefore, we consider any restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unjustified.

[28]  We therefore do not uphold the complaint.

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

Judge Bill Hastings

Chair
9 March 2020

Appendix

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

Maree Guenole

1  Maree Guenole’s original complaint – 30 August 2019

2  TVNZ’s original decision – 26 September 2019

3  Ms Guenole’s referral to the BSA – 23 October 2019

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 13 November 2019

¹ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
² Guideline 8a
³ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁴ As above
⁵ Guideline 8c
⁶ Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
⁷ See for example: Spark refusing to halt 5G rollout, despite protest (Newshub, 5 December 2019), Fears over 5G 'unfounded' (NZ Herald, 18 October 2019), 5G phone overheats - should you freak out about radiation? (NZ Herald, 21 July 2019)
⁸ Commentary, Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18.
⁹ See for example: 'We're all going to be exposed' - woman launches petition to stop 5G in Mangawhai (1 News, 4 July 2019), Professor debunks some of the myths surrounding the safety of 5G (Seven Sharp, 9 December 2019)
¹⁰ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, CIV-2011-485-1110
¹¹ Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 19
¹² Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 19
¹³ Guidance: Accuracy – Distinguishing Fact and Analysis, Comment or Opinion, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 62
¹⁴ As above
¹⁵ As above
¹⁶ Guideline 9e
¹⁷ As above
¹⁸ 5G questions and answers (Ministry of Health)
¹⁹ Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones (World Health Organisation)
²⁰ Guideline 9e