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, under the balance and accuracy standards, about an item on 1News reporting on a New Zealand scientist’s research trip to Greenland. The complainant alleged that a comment made by the host that ‘if all the ice in Greenland were to melt, the sea would rise by seven metres,’ was incorrect, as research shows the sea level rise to be occurring at a much lower rate. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, noting reasonable viewers were unlikely to interpret the broadcast in the way the complainant described and were unlikely to be misled by the absence of further supporting information or information regarding who funded the research. The balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  A broadcast of 1News on 15 September 2024 included a report on a New Zealand scientist’s research trip to Greenland to study the ice shelf. The item was introduced as follows:

Host: A Kiwi scientist has travelled to one of the most isolated regions on Earth to try and figure out how fast the ice there is disappearing. If all the ice in Greenland were to melt, the sea would rise by seven metres. US correspondent Logan Church reports.

Church: Welcome to one of the most remote places on the planet, Northern Greenland. A fierce natural beauty like nowhere else with a huge amount of ice. However, that ice is melting - and a ticking time bomb.

Jacob Anderson (Researcher): The Greenland ice sheet contains about seven metres of sea level equivalent if it were to completely melt, and so even if 10% - or around 70 centimetres - were to melt, it would be catastrophic for coastal communities around the world.

                        …

Church: [Sea level rises] could be a disaster for cities across the globe. Take Manhattan in New York. City authorities here are spending billions of dollars on infrastructure to combat the effects of climate change and sea level rise, but many are concerned it won’t be enough. The samples [taken from Greenland] are now back in New York at Columbia University. Those involved hope the information they glean from them could help better prepare us for a warmer future.

The complaint

[2]  Richard Hoadley complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis the icesheet melting could not result in a sea level rise of seven metres, as the icesheet melting at its current rate has a much lower impact on sea levels. They added:

• ‘Greenland’s icesheets melting and the sea level rising some seven metres would be impossible and is therefore an incorrect statement.’
• ‘[Any] sea level rise would not likely be more than 2 to 6 mm.’
• A study which measured global changes in land ice volume concluded the sea level contribution from 2012-2016 was ‘1.85mm ± 0.13 mm yr’.
• TVNZ was not reporting fairly but ‘trying to be a bully and promote alarm amongst their viewers’.
• There were no references provided to support or balance the statement about the seven-metre sea rise and no information as to who was funding the relevant work by the scientist.

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  TVNZ did not uphold Hoadley’s complaint for the following reasons:

• Climate change is not a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of the balance standard, and no balancing opinion was required. ‘It was clear that the news item was told from the perspective of the researchers who were investigating the icesheet melt.’
• ‘…1News is permitted to rely on expert analysis and opinion which the statement by Jacob Anderson is, and further there is no basis for 1News to call into question the research or Mr Anderson’s expert analysis or opinion. The information in question is cited often in scientific papers and reputable science reporting.’

Jurisdiction

[4]  On referral to the Authority, the complainant also nominated the fairness standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, stating ‘TVNZ failed to provide any support references on 15 September to balance [the statement regarding] the sea rising some 7 metres due to the “melting” of Greenland.’

[5]  Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority is only able to consider complaints under the standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. However, in limited circumstances, the Authority can consider standards not raised in the original complaint where it can be reasonably implied into the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.¹

[6]  Noting the fairness standard addresses unfairness towards individuals and organisations featured in a broadcast, a fairness standard complaint cannot be reasonably implied into the wording of Hoadley’s original complaint and is not necessary to consider the issues he has raised. Accordingly, we do not consider this standard.

The standards

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard² is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ 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. Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[8]  The complainant has also nominated the balance standard. We consider the complaint is more appropriately addressed under the accuracy standard. However, we have addressed balance briefly at [17].

Our analysis

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

[10]  As a starting point, we have 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.⁴

[11]  The complainant argues the broadcast mislead viewers about the rate of Greenland’s icesheet melting.

[12]  To ‘mislead’ in the context of the accuracy standard means ‘to give another a wrong idea or impression of the facts’.⁵ The standard is only concerned with material inaccuracies or materially misleading points. Technical or other points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁶

[13]  The complaint concerns an interpretation of the broadcast that we consider unlikely to represent the practical interpretation or understanding of reasonable New Zealand viewers. The stated objective of the research was ‘to try and figure out how fast the ice there is disappearing’. Viewers would therefore understand the anticipated rate and impacts of Greenland’s icesheet melting were unknown. The comments were very clearly not predicting a potential seven metre sea level rise but providing some feel for the quantity of ice in Greenland (allowing viewers to understand the significance of the research).

[14]  We are also satisfied the absence of further supporting information for the scientist’s (hypothetical) statement and information about who was funding the study would not affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole. The broadcast did, in any case, identify the scientist making the statement and that the project was associated with Columbia University in New York. This offered some basis for viewers to assess the merits of information presented.

[15]  Having found the broadcast was not misleading, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the broadcaster has made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast.⁷ In any case, we consider it reasonable for TVNZ, in this context, to rely on the scientist’s expert opinion.

[16]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Remaining standard

[17]  Balance:⁸ The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure 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 We do not consider the particular focus of this item, a brief news item reporting on new research from a reputable research facility on the predicted impact of icesheet melting on sea level rise, amounted to a discussion of a controversial issue that triggered the requirements of the balance standard.¹¹ The balance standard therefore does not apply.

Final comments

[18]  As will be apparent from our findings above, we have identified no basis for the complainant’s allegation that TVNZ was ‘trying to be a bully and promote alarm amongst their viewers’. We remind the complainant that they need to be careful about making unwarranted/unjustified criticisms. The complaints regime is focused on a programme’s impact and compliance with broadcasting standards and complaints must be directed at these issues.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
28 January 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Richard Hoadley’s original complaint – 15 September 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision on the complaint – 09 October 2024

3  Hoadley’s referral to the Authority – 19 October 2024

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 04 November 2024

5  Hoadley’s further submissions – 05 to 29 November 2024

¹ Attorney-General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [98]
⁶ Guideline 6.2
⁷ Van der Merwe and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2019-015 at [21]
⁸ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1
¹¹ See Foster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-125 at [21] for a similar finding