BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority¹ has not upheld a complaint concerning a news item reporting on a road safety seminar in which experts had voiced support for reducing speed limits, in the context of the Government’s decision to stop blanket speed reductions. The complainant considered information provided by road safety experts and others during the item was inaccurate and misleading, and that the item lacked balance. The Authority found no breach of the accuracy standard, noting that broadcasters are entitled to rely on information conveyed by reputable experts. It also found no breach of the balance standard, noting the broadcast sufficiently presented alternative viewpoints in the circumstances.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance

The broadcast

[1]  A news report on a road safety seminar was broadcast on 21 December 2023 on both Newshub Live at 6pm on Three and News First on Sky Open (Newshub produced the story). The hosts’ introductions to the items were slightly different, however the item itself was the same on both programmes.

[2]  The item on Newshub Live at 6pm was introduced:

Host:            A road safety expert has a warning that any moves to increase speed limits will kill and seriously injure more Kiwis. The Government has decided to remove blanket speed limit reductions, effectively meaning some speed limits will increase. At a road safety seminar in Auckland today, experts presented their evidence opposing that move.

[3]  The News First item was introduced:

Host:            The official holiday period begins tomorrow and it’s hoped last summer’s road toll of 21 will not be repeated. At a road safety seminar in Auckland today, experts made it clear that reducing speed limits is key to safer roads. But as [reporter] reports, the Government’s driving in the opposite direction.

[4]  The report included the following comments from various contributors:

• ‘This is Graham, an example of a human that could survive a high-speed road collision [image shown onscreen of large misshapen human].’ (Reporter)
• ‘That's what we would have had to evolve into to withstand crash forces. But we haven't.’ (David Cliff, Global Road Safety Partnership CEO)
• ‘David Cliff led road policing in New Zealand for four years. At a seminar today held by Auckland Transport, he was at pains to point out that evidence points to lower speeds reducing road deaths.’ (Reporter)
• ‘If you're struck at 50km an hour, better than an even chance, probably about 55% chance you'll die.’ (Cliff)
• ‘The World Health Organization's Global Status report on road safety, published this week, put the annual number of road deaths across the globe at 1.19 million. That's roughly the population of Auckland dying on roads each year.’ (Reporter)
• ‘We have lowered speed limits on a number of roads, in line with international evidence and seeing really, really great results.’ (Ping Sim, Auckland Transport Safety Specialist)
• ‘Well, the Government's really committed to improving road safety, but we're not going to be imposing blanket speed limit reductions, which simply slow New Zealanders down.’ / ‘The biggest cause of deaths on the roads in recent years has been drugs and alcohol. That's what we've got to tackle.’ (Transport Minister Simeon Brown)
• ‘In practice, that means some speed limits will increase.’ (Reporter, in response to Brown’s comments that the Government would not be imposing blanket speed reductions)
• ‘Any calls to increase speed limits directly mean they're asking for more people to be killed and seriously injured in road crashes.’ (Cliff)

[5]  The item also featured a graph (attributed to Auckland Transport as the source) which indicated annual road deaths in Auckland had reduced in areas where speed limits were lowered three years ago and increased in the areas where speeds were unchanged.  

The complaint

[6]  Geoff Neal complained that the broadcasts breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. His concerns were as follows:

Accuracy

• The Newshub Live at 6pm host’s introduction ‘A road safety expert has a warning that any moves to increase speed limits will kill and seriously injure more Kiwis. The government has decided to remove blanket speed limit reductions, effectively meaning some speed limits will increase’ implied that by removing speed reductions, the Government will kill or seriously injure more Kiwis. Further, it was incorrect to suggest that some speed limits would increase.
• David Cliff was presented as an expert but did not provide expert evidence to back up his statements that ‘evidence points to lower speeds reducing road deaths’ and there is about a 55% chance you will die if you are struck at 50km/h.
• Cliff’s comment that there is about a 55% chance you will die if you are struck at 50km/h is incorrect as ‘More than 55% of drivers, passengers, cyclists, and pedestrians survive being hit by a car at 55 kilometres per hour.’ His use of a ‘grotesque’ image to illustrate what a human would have to look like to withstand crash forces was also misleading.
• Cliff’s comment ‘Any calls to increase speed limits, directly mean they’re asking for more people to be killed and seriously injured in road crashes,’ was sensationalist and misleading as it overstated the impact of the speed reductions based on the statistics.
• Sim’s comment ‘We have lowered speed limits on a number of roads in line with international evidence and seen really really great results’ was misleading as there was no evidence for this from Auckland Transport’s own data.
• The reporter’s statement about the WHO’s Global Status Report was ‘incredibly misleading’ as global figures were being applied to a New Zealand story, and road deaths in New Zealand have in fact decreased by 60% over 30 years.
• The graph shown onscreen was misleading including because it was based on data which ‘fails to measure fatalities per traffic unit or kilometre travelled’ and did not take into account COVID-19 lockdown periods when people were not driving or cycling as much, or vehicles avoiding speed-reduced roads.

Balance

• The broadcast focused on the opposition to speed limit reductions and did not give airtime to the ‘overwhelming’ support for that decision.
• Cliff and Sim are ‘two of the most biased speakers on this issue’ and there was only one opposing view from the Transport Minister. ‘2 v 1 is not balance. 1 v 1 is balance.’

[7]  The complainant has raised some issues tangential to the broadcasts, including an Auckland Transport advertisement, a statistical report commissioned by Auckland Transport on Phase 1 of its Safe Speeds Programme, and the headline of a corresponding YouTube video. We note our focus in considering this complaint is on what was actually broadcast in the items at issue.

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) provided a response on behalf of both WBD and Sky Network Television Ltd (Sky) given it produced the news item. The broadcasters did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Accuracy

• ‘Overall, [the broadcasters were] satisfied the Broadcast did not contain any material errors of fact and that the commentary and analysis presented was identifiable as such.’
• ‘The CEO of Global Road Safety Partnership, David Cliff is a recognised expert in his field and … [the broadcasters were] entitled to rely on the information he provided. His commentary was clearly based on his research and [the broadcasters were] satisfied sufficient steps were taken to ensure the veracity of the information he presented.’
• ‘The comment from Mr Cliff that "Any calls to increase speed limits, directly mean they’re asking for more people to be killed and seriously injured in road crashes" was clearly his genuinely held opinion to which he is entitled.’
• ‘Similarly, in her role as a Safety Specialist for Auckland Transport, … Newshub was entitled to reply on Ms Ping's commentary and analysis.’
• ‘The graphic of 'Auckland Road Deaths' keyed the source of the statistics as Auckland Transport, and again, [Newshub] maintains they are a reputable source which Newshub is entitled to rely upon.’
• ‘Stopping blanket speed limit reductions would effectively lead to increases in speed in some areas. There are speed reductions currently in place in some parts of New Zealand - to remove those speed limit reductions, as proposed by the Government, would mean the speed in those areas would increase to reach the speed limit without a reduction.’
• ‘The reporter's reference to the World Health Organisation’s Global Status Report on Road Safety clearly presented the statistic on road deaths as a global statistic - which was accurate. The comparison of that overall number to Auckland's population was clearly explained and we do not agree it constitutes a material error.’

Balance

• ‘The focus of the Broadcast was on the Government's commitment to stopping blanket speed limit reductions and opposition to that decision.’
• ‘The audience had the benefit of hearing from two road safety experts, David Cliff and Ping Sim presenting their views in which they disagreed with the Government's decision to stop blanket speed limit reductions. The audience also heard directly from the Transport Minister, Simeon Brown, explaining the Government's reasons for its decision.’
• ‘This standard requires that appropriate and alternative perspectives are presented on the focus of the issue under discussion, which [the broadcasters are] satisfied this Broadcast did.’

The standards

[9]  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.

[10]  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

Our analysis

[11]  We have watched the broadcasts and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[12]  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.⁷

Accuracy

[13]  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 the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[14]  A programme may be inaccurate or misleading, but nevertheless may not breach the standard, if the broadcaster took reasonable steps, for example, by relying on a reputable source.⁸

[15]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact. However, broadcasters should still make reasonable efforts to ensure analysis, comment or opinion is not materially misleading with respect to any facts:

• referred to; or
• upon which the analysis, comment or opinion is based.⁹

[16]  In assessing whether a statement was a statement of fact, or was analysis, comment or opinion, the following factors may be relevant:

• the language used
• the type of programme
• the role or reputation of the person speaking
• the subject matter
• whether the statement is attributed to someone
• whether evidence or proof is provided.¹⁰

[17]  With the above in mind, we go on to consider the complainant’s concerns under the accuracy standard.

Newshub Live at 6pm introductory comments

[18]  ‘A road safety expert has a warning that any moves to increase speed limits will kill and seriously injure more Kiwis.’ - This was not inaccurate or misleading. It simply alerted viewers to comments that would be traversed in the item. The relevant statement by the expert is considered further below.

[19]  Removing blanket speed limit reductions would effectively mean some speed limits would increase - We do not agree this comment was inaccurate. Reductions to speed limits were made on some state highways and urban roads by Waka Kotahi | Ministry of Transport during the previous government’s term.¹¹ It is therefore accurate that some speed limits would increase if they were reverted to the speed in place before they were reduced.

David Cliff’s comments (increasing speed means asking for more people to be killed, 55% chance of dying if struck at 50km, use of ‘Graham’ image)

[20]  We consider all these matters constitute the comment, analysis and opinion of an expert and viewers are likely to appreciate it as such. As we have previously recognised, reasonable listeners are also likely to appreciate that even experts have personal perspectives and views – and that there are often ‘experts’ on both sides of a debate.¹² Therefore, while the standard generally does not apply to such comments, we consider viewers were unlikely to be misled by them.

[21]  The standard recognises that, even when comment, analysis and opinion is being dealt with, broadcasters must still exercise reasonable efforts to ensure it is not materially misleading with respect to underlying facts. However, this is a ‘reasonable efforts’ test. Broadcasters are under no obligation to undertake the level of analysis outlined in the complainant’s submissions. Such an obligation would itself represent an unjustified limit on freedom of expression, likely to dissuade broadcasters from bringing the public information about such issues.

[22]  As noted by the broadcaster, Cliff was identified in the broadcast as a ‘road safety expert’ and CEO of the Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP). The GRSP is a not-for-profit organisation which, among other functions, provides expert review and technical advice on road safety strategy, policy and projects.¹³ The broadcast also noted that Cliff ‘led road policing in New Zealand for four years.’ As an expert in the field of road safety, from a reputable organisation, the broadcasters were entitled to rely on information provided by Cliff and were not required to present background evidence for each statement of fact he made (as the complainant has alleged).¹⁴ Relying on information provided by a reputable expert constitutes ‘reasonable efforts’ being made to ensure accuracy in the context of the standard.

Ping Sim’s comment – ‘We have lowered speed limits on a number of roads in line with international evidence and seen really really great results’.

[23]  Similar to above, Ping Sim’s comment is likely to be understood by viewers as reflecting the opinion (and enthusiasm) of someone involved in Auckland Transport’s Safe Speeds programme. The reference to ‘really really great results’ is not a factual statement about the relevant safety issues. The broadcasters were also entitled to rely on information provided by Sim as a Safety Specialist from Auckland Transport, a reputable government agency.

Reporter’s comments – reference to WHO data on road deaths.

[24]  The complainant alleged the reporter’s statement about the WHO’s Global Status Report indicating ‘roughly the population of Auckland [were] dying on roads each year’ was ‘incredibly misleading’ as global figures were being applied to a New Zealand story, and road deaths in New Zealand have in fact decreased by 60% over 30 years. We do not consider this comparison to the population of Auckland was misleading. The reporter was clear that the figure represented the number of road deaths ‘across the globe’ rather than in New Zealand. Further, it was clear that the comparison to the population of Auckland was to give the audience a better idea of the number of people that figure represented. There was no suggestion that that the figure represented the number of road deaths in New Zealand.

Graph

[25]  The complainant has argued the graph shown on screen was based on flawed data. The graph was clearly attributed to Auckland Transport, and again, the broadcasters were entitled to rely on information provided by Auckland Transport as a reputable government agency.

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

Balance

[27]  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.’¹⁵

[28]  The item discussed experts’ views on the benefits of reducing speed limits in the context of the Government’s decision to stop blanket speed reductions. The issue of speed limit reductions has been a controversial one (as partly evidenced in the item) since reductions were introduced by Waka Kotahi | Ministry of Transport during the term of the previous government, with views for and against being traversed in the media.¹⁶ It is also clearly an issue of public importance given its implications for everyday New Zealanders. The standard therefore applies.

[29]  The next step is to assess whether the item sufficiently presented significant viewpoints in the circumstances. We find that it did, taking into account the following factors:

• The item’s introductions made it clear it was focused on a road safety seminar which was held by Auckland Transport, and experts’ views that evidence points to lower speeds reducing road deaths. It did not purport to be an in-depth examination of the pros and cons of speed limit reductions.
• The broadcast included comment from Cliff and Sim, as experts in the field of road/transport safety, as well as Transport Minister Simeon Brown who provided comment on the Government’s reasons for stopping speed limit reductions.
• The standard does not require equal time to be given to each significant viewpoint on a controversial issue of public importance (ie balance is not measured by a ‘stopwatch’). Broadcasters should give a fair voice to alternative significant viewpoints taking into account the nature of the issue and coverage of that issue.¹⁷ We are satisfied this occurred here, taking into account that the focus of the report was on the road safety seminar and the experts’ views, and a key alternative viewpoint was provided by the Transport Minister on behalf of the Government.
• Lastly, the standard allows for balance to be achieved over time, within the period of current interest.¹⁸ To the extent the complainant is concerned that views in favour of stopping blanket speed reductions were not sufficiently covered in the broadcast, we note the topic of the Government’s (and others’) opposition to blanket speed reductions has been reported widely in the media, and viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of this reporting.¹⁹

[30]  In these circumstances, 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
22 April 2024    

Appendix

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

Warner Bros. Discovery

1  Geoff Neal’s formal complaint to WBD – 22 December 2023

2  WBD’s response to complaint – 7 February 2024

3  Neal’s referral to the Authority – 1 March 2024

4  Neal confirming broadcasting standards being raised – 8 March 2024

5  WBD confirming no further comments – 22 March 2024

Sky Network Television Ltd

6  Neal’s formal complaint to Sky – 22 December 2023

7  Neal’s referral to the Authority – 1 March 2024

8  Sky’s response to the complaint – 6 March 2024

9  Sky confirming no further comments – 19 March 2024

¹ John Gillespie declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint.
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Guideline 5.1
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁸ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁹ Guideline 6.1
¹⁰ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
¹¹ Bernard Orsman “Thousands of Auckland roads affected by Simeon Brown’s speed limit reduction reversal”’ NZHerald (online ed, 23 March 2024)
¹² Drinnan and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2021-083 at [19]
¹³ Global Road Safety Partnership “About us”
¹⁴ See Schon and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-080 at [14] for a similar finding
¹⁵ Guideline 5.1
¹⁶ See for example: Bernard Orsman “Election 2023: National ditches Labour’s ‘anti-car ideology’, promises to restore 100km/h and 50km/h speed limits on motorways and local roads” NZHerald (online ed, 24 September 2023); “Chris Hipkins on speed limits, cyclone damage and holiday plans” 1News (online ed, 13 December 2023); Laura Smith “Speed limit U-turn: Rotorua moves to ‘tailored’ approach over blanket rules” RNZ (online ed, 4 November 2023); “Government’s U-turn on lower speed limits will cost lives – safety expert” RNZ (online ed, 13 December 2023)
¹⁷ Guideline 5.3
¹⁸ Guideline 5.2
¹⁹ See for example: Bernard Orsman “Election 2023: National ditches Labour’s ‘anti-car ideology’, promises to restore 100km/h and 50km/h speed limits on motorways and local roads” NZHerald (online ed, 24 September 2023); Felix Desmarais “’Blanket’ speed limit reductions will cease – Government” 1News (online ed, 12 December 2023); Jonathan Leask “Ashburton to review permanent 30km/h speed limits around schools” Star News (online ed, 14 December 2023); “Government to hit the brake on speed limit changes” RNZ (online ed, 12 December 2023)