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 an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, reporting on a draft report by the Ministry for Primary Industries | Manatū Ahu Matua proposing to ban many events in the sport of rodeo, was unbalanced and unfair. While the complainant was concerned the item lacked ‘pro‑rodeo’ perspectives, the Authority found the item made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view in the item, noting audiences can be expected to be aware of pro-rodeo perspectives as part of ongoing media coverage. The fairness standard was not breached in respect of the New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association (who were provided an opportunity to comment and were not otherwise treated unfairly) and did not apply in respect of other individuals or organisations named by the complainant given they were not referred to in the broadcast, as required by the standard.

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item on Newshub Live at 6pm on 26 January 2023 reported on a ‘confidential report which shows the Government is proposing to ban many events in the sport of rodeo.’ Before the item aired, the hosts gave two separate warnings that the story contained images many viewers may find disturbing.

[2]  The reporter, Michael Morrah, described how a draft report by the Ministry for Primary Industry’s | Manatū Ahu Matua (MPI) National Animal Welfare Committee had proposed banning multiple rodeo events, including steer wrestling, rope and tie events, breakaway roping, using spurs, and flank strapping.

[3]  The item included footage from a recent rodeo in Wairoa, showing participants and animals in several events. This included steer wrestling (‘the objective – bring the animal to the ground as quick as possible’) and the rope and tie (‘lasso a calf and bring it down, strap its legs’). The reporter noted:

It's also important to note that while these events may appear brutal, the old rodeo code allowed it. That's despite the Animal Welfare Act stating that animals must be handled in a manner that minimizes the likelihood of unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress.

[4]  The item included comment from:

• Dr Helen Beattie, Managing Director of Veterinarians for Animal Welfare: ‘[The changes proposed are] fairly significant. There’s some really big changes in there that would certainly improve the welfare of animals in the rodeos.’ ‘Horses, and actually bulls find [flank strapping] to be quite uncomfortable and it encourages them to buck.’
• Debra Ashton, CEO of SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation): ‘People go to rodeos to see live action of animals bucking and being chased.’ / ‘We could definitely see the end to rodeo.’
• Dr Kat Littlewood, a Massey University animal welfare lecturer and veterinarian: ‘I think we are at that tipping point. I think we’re at that point where we, you know, we have the evidence and we know that there’s pain or distress involved.’

[5]  The reporter stated the President of the New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association, Lyal Cocks, had also been approached for comment, and that he had confirmed he had a copy of the report: ‘However, he couldn't comment as he was told he was not allowed to. He says the proposal is in its very early stages and it still had to be released for public consultation.’

The complaint

[6]  William Jennings complained the broadcast breached the balance and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis ‘Mr Morrah's rodeo story was anything but balanced or fair. This is clear from the selected and edited imagery that was used and the information that was given.’ Jennings added:

Balance

• ‘It seems the only news that TV3 cares to make or look for at a rodeo concern only the views of animal rights groups.’
• ‘Broadcasters for these stories, including TV3, always paint rodeo in a negative light ... The footage used is generally one sided, old, repetitious, and doesn't show the general tenor of a rodeo.’
• ‘I have been to many rodeos where they are run professionally, without incident, and animal welfare is of the highest concern.’
• ‘It does appear that Mr Morrah did try to talk to the rodeo association to get a comment but went no further in terms of talking to anyone else or presenting any other imagery to show the general tenor of rodeos, the communities they support, or ask why Mr [Cocks] was not permitted to comment.’
• ‘Mr Morrah only spoke to Dr. Helen Beattie from Veterinarians for Animal Welfare ("VAW"), Ms Ashton from SAFE and Dr Kat Littlewood from Massey University. I note that Dr Littlewood is also a committee member on VAW's board. Mr Morrah made no effort to speak to any rodeo contestant or any other group that could potentially be affected by the NAWAC proposals.’

Fairness

• It was unfair that the broadcast gave two content warnings when ‘broadcasters including TV3 constantly play footage of war, murder and all varieties of violence generally without any warning to the viewer.’
• On referral, the complainant considered the item was ‘unfair to the Rodeo Cowboys Association, rodeo competitors, rodeo spectators and anyone else involved with rodeos.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

Balance

• It was ‘satisfied that the Broadcast presented appropriate and sufficient perspectives. The audience heard from Dr Helen Beattie, Managing Director of Veterinarians for Animal Welfare, Debra Ashton, CEO of SAFE and Dr Kat Littlewood, a Massey University animal welfare lecturer and veterinarian.’
• ‘The reporter sought comment from the New Zealand Cowboys Association and faithfully reported the response from its President. The Broadcast also explained that the animal treatment shown in the rodeo footage is allowed under the existing welfare code for the rodeo.’
• ‘Balance is not achieved by a stopwatch. Just because one side of a debate has more airtime than another does not necessarily lead to a breach of this standard. The standard requires that alternative perspectives are presented, which [WBD] is satisfied this Broadcast did.’

Fairness

• The complaint did not name any specific individuals or organisations that the broadcast was unfair to, as required by the standard. In any event, no broadcast content was identified as being unfair. (WBD did not add any further comments on referral).

The standards

[8]  The balance standard¹ ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.² The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.³

[9]  The fairness standard⁴ protects the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁵ It ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.

Our analysis

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

[11]  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.⁶

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.’⁷

[13]  An issue of public importance is something that would have significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public.⁸ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.⁹

[14]  The broadcast discussed a confidential MPI report which showed the Government was proposing to ban many events in the sport of rodeo. The issue of whether certain rodeo events should be banned in the interests of animal welfare is a controversial issue which continues to excite conflicting opinions and appears to be an issue of concern to members of the New Zealand public.¹⁰ The standard therefore applies.

[15]  The next question under the standard is whether the broadcaster presented significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest. A key consideration is what an audience expects from a programme, and whether they were likely to have been misinformed by the omission or treatment of a significant perspective.¹¹

[16]  The standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance. Broadcasters should give a fair voice to alternative significant viewpoints taking into account the nature of the issue and coverage of that issue.¹²

[17]  The assessment of whether a reasonable range of other perspectives has been presented includes consideration of:¹³

• The programme’s introduction and the way in which it was presented, for example, whether the programme:
  (a)  purported to be a balanced examination of an issue
  (b)  was clearly signalled as approaching a topic from a particular   perspective
  (c)  was narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger, complex debate.
• The nature of the issue/whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage, including coverage in other media.

[18]  In this case, we found the broadcaster met its obligations under the standard to make reasonable efforts to present balancing viewpoints either within the programme or within the period of current interest, taking into account the following factors:

• The item’s introduction made it clear the item was focused on MPI’s proposals in its draft report. It did not purport to be an in-depth, balanced examination of rodeo as a sport generally.
• The item included various comments on the draft report from the Managing Director of Veterinarians for Animal Welfare, the CEO of SAFE, and a Massey University animal welfare lecturer/veterinarian.
• While the complainant is concerned about the lack of pro-rodeo perspectives in the broadcast, it is clear the broadcaster sought comment from the New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association and included its comment to the extent it was provided. As the governing body of New Zealand rodeo, the broadcaster was entitled to rely on its perspective on behalf of the rodeo community.
• The reporter also noted ‘while these events may appear brutal, the old rodeo code allowed it,’ making it clear that the events shown in the footage were not contravening any rules. (We note the referred rodeo code was the current code as the proposals were a draft.)
• While the complainant is concerned the item used ‘selected and edited’ imagery, we note the imagery shown during the item was taken directly from a rodeo event in Wairoa. Broadcasters, as a matter of editorial discretion, are entitled to include whatever footage or imagery they consider relevant to the story, provided it complies with broadcasting standards.¹⁴
• Lastly, the balance standard allows for balance to be achieved over time, and recognises that for some issues the ‘period of current interest’ will be ongoing, meaning audiences can reasonably be expected to be aware of the major opposing viewpoints.¹⁵ Animal welfare as part of rodeo events has been the subject of ongoing media coverage, and audiences can be expected to be aware of pro-rodeo perspectives.¹⁶

[19]  In these circumstances, we do not consider viewers would have expected to be presented with, or otherwise left uninformed by the omission of, further pro‑rodeo perspectives.

Fairness

[20]  The fairness standard requires broadcasters to deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.¹⁷ The purpose of the standard is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.¹⁸ The standard does not address concerns regarding whether issues/facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed, which are matters we have addressed under the balance standard, above.¹⁹

[21]  The complainant considered the item was ‘unfair to the Rodeo Cowboys Association, rodeo competitors, rodeo spectators and anyone else involved with rodeos.’

[22]  With the exception of the Rodeo Cowboys Association, the broadcast did not refer to any of these participants, so the standard does not apply in this respect. Comments throughout the broadcast were focused on the industry, which has many participants who are responsible for addressing concerns raised in the broadcast. We consider the sport of rodeo too broad to fall within the meaning of an ‘organisation’ for the purposes of the standard.²⁰

[23]  In relation to the New Zealand Rodeo Cowboys Association, we do not consider the organisation was treated unfairly, given its comment was requested for the broadcast and incorporated to the extent it was provided.

[24]  In response to the complainant’s concern that it was unfair that the broadcast gave two content warnings when other items depicting footage of war, murder and violence do not include warnings, we note warnings are content specific,²¹ and our jurisdiction is limited to looking at the particular broadcast complained about, in its specific context.   

[25]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint.

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

Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i
Member
14 June 2023

Appendix

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

1  William Jennings’s formal complaint – 30 January 2023

2  WBD’s response to the complaint – 28 February 2023

3  Jennings’s referral to the Authority – 6 March 2023

4  WBD’s confirmation of no further comment – 19 April 2023

¹ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
² Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
³ Guideline 5.1
⁴ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁷ Guideline 5.1
⁸ Guideline 5.1
⁹ Guideline 5.1
¹⁰ See Katie Harris “Renewed calls for the Government to ban rodeo after three animal deaths” NZ Herald (online ed, 13 January 2023); Olivia Caldwell “'I won’t stop until rodeo stops': A decade of protesting rodeo in New Zealand” Stuff (28 November 2022); and Philip McKibbin “Rodeo is cruel and abusive – it’s time for New Zealand to ban it” The Guardian (online ed, 11 June 2022)
¹¹ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 15
¹² Guideline 5.3
¹³ Guideline 5.4
¹⁴ See McIntyre and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-038 at [7] for a similar finding
¹⁵ Guideline 5.2 and 5.4
¹⁶ Yashas Srinivasa “Waimate Rodeo organisers expecting ‘larger than normal’ crowd” Stuff (23 February 2023); Keiller MacDuff “Winchester Rodeo deemed a success by organisers as protesters stay away” Stuff (23 October 2022); Jonty Dine “Legal challenge to rodeos dismissed in High Court” RNZ (online ed, 30 July 2022); Chris Tobin “More young people taking up rodeo” NZ Herald (online ed, 27 February 2019);
¹⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
¹⁹ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 20
²⁰ See Chilton & New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association Inc and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2022-134 at [24] for a similar finding regarding the ’commercial greyhound racing’ industry
²¹ Guideline 1.7