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 1 News, reporting on the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in the region of Kherson, Ukraine, incorrectly attributed responsibility for the incident, and shelling of the region after the incident, to Russia. The Authority noted the broadcast did not state, either expressly or implicitly, who was responsible for the dam’s destruction. Further, while the Authority acknowledged the broadcast may have implied Russia was responsible for some shelling in the Kherson region, this suggestion was not inaccurate, and the broadcast did not state Russia shelled the region after the dam’s destruction. It accordingly found no breach of the accuracy standard. The remaining standards did not apply.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  An item on 1 News on 8 June 2023 reported on the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in the region of Kherson, Ukraine. The host introduced the item:

Tens of thousands of people are stranded and as many as 29 towns and villages have been inundated after the destruction of a major Ukrainian dam in Russian occupied territory. Satellite images from before and after the dam breach reveal the extent of the damage in the city of Kherson.

[2]  The item continued with a BBC report. The reporter began by noting ‘Neither Russia nor Ukraine control here. Now no one can live here’. The report detailed the damage to the area, and included interviews with people affected. The reporter noted ‘Shelling is a common occurrence in Kherson. The Russians might have left but they’re never far’.

[3]  The reporter concluded by stating:

There is a military dynamic to the Kakhovka Dam’s destruction. It makes any Ukrainian offensive from here more complicated. As for those living here it’s gone from difficult to the verge of impossible.

[4]  The host concluded the segment by referring to Ukrainian officials’ statement on the issue, that ‘the flooding will force the evacuation of about 40,000 people’.

The complaint

[5]  John O’ Brien complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand as it was illogical to suggest:

• the attack was initiated by Russia when the area of the dam was already under Russian control (in other words, why would ‘Russia hurt the very people they claim they are protecting’); and
• the shelling of the city after that event was being done by Russia (‘the city is under Russian control so why would they shell themselves?’)

[6]  With regard to the destruction of the dam, the complainant considered the segment was biased against Russia and, at the time of the report, ‘nobody has been established as the actual perpetrator of the attacks’. The complainant also considered Ukraine, rather than Russia, would benefit most from the attack, given Russia had relied on the dam as a ‘natural defensive obstacle’.

The broadcaster’s response

[7]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

• The balance standard did not apply as the issue being reported on (the collapse of a dam inundating a number of towns) was not controversial.
• In any event, the complainant’s concern under this standard appears ‘more directed at issues of bias in the reporting’. The balance standard is not directed at 'bias' in and of itself.¹ Broadcasters, as a matter of freedom of expression and editorial discretion, are entitled to present matters from particular perspectives or with a particular focus.²

Accuracy

• The report ‘did not state which, if any, side had caused the dam’s collapse. The only statement made in this regard was a possibly military dynamic to the destruction.’

Fairness

• The complainant had not alleged any person or organisation was treated unfairly. To the extent the concern relates to unfairness towards Russia, the country was not criticised in the item and the Authority has previously noted the standard does not apply to Russia as a country, rather than an ‘organisation’ as required by the standard.³

The standards

[8]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁴ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁵ 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 (meaning to give a wrong idea or impression of the facts). Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[9]  We consider the complainant’s concerns are adequately addressed under the above standard. However, we deal briefly with the balance and fairness standards below, at paragraph [19].

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

Accuracy

[12]  The standard outlines that viewers may be misinformed in two ways: by an incorrect statement of a material fact, and/or by being misled by the programme as a whole (meaning to be given a ‘wrong idea or impression of the facts’). This Authority has previously accepted broadcasts can be misleading by omission, or as a result of the way dialogue and images have been edited together.⁷

[13]  The accuracy standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁸

[14]  Further, the standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment, or opinion rather than statements of fact.⁹

[15]  We understand the complainant is concerned the segment suggested Russia was responsible for the destruction of the dam and that Russia carried out shelling on Kherson after the dam’s destruction.

[16]  Neither Russia nor Ukraine have accepted responsibility for destroying the dam.¹⁰ However, we note the item made no express statement attributing responsibility to any country. We also do not consider the broadcast implicitly suggested Russia was responsible for the dam’s destruction. While the reporter commented that the dam’s destruction obstructed ‘any Ukrainian offensive,’ this did not impute blame on Russia and, further, constitutes the reporter’s own analysis of the situation. As noted above, such analysis is not subject to the accuracy standard.

[17]  Similarly, the broadcast did not state Russia shelled Kherson after the dam’s destruction. The relevant statement was ‘shelling is a common occurrence in Kherson. The Russians might have left but they’re never far.’ While these statements may implicitly suggest Russia was responsible for some shelling in the region, this is not an inaccurate suggestion.¹¹ We note the Kherson region has been an area of significant contention in the Russia-Ukraine war, with Russian forces occupying it at the beginning of the war,¹² and Ukraine making some progress in re-claiming it more recently.¹³ Further, we consider this was a brief statement used to provide some context in the report on what the town of Kherson faced prior to the inundation, and was not material to the item.

[18]  In these circumstances, we have found no express or implied inaccuracy as part of this broadcast. Accordingly, we have not identified any harm justifying regulatory intervention (and a corresponding restriction on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression).

Remaining standards

[19]  We do not consider the remaining standards applied:

• Balance:¹⁴ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.¹⁵ An issue is controversial if it is of topical currency and has conflicting opinion or about which there is ongoing public debate.¹⁶ While the issue of who was responsible for the attack might have garnered such controversy, the report was a straightforward report on the destruction of the dam without any attribution of blame discussed. The standard therefore does not apply.
• Fairness:¹⁷ the standard ensures individuals and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage. As we have previously noted, the standard does not apply to Russia as a nation.¹⁸

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

Susie Staley
Chair
3 October 2023   

Appendix

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

1  John O’Brien’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 8 June 2023

2  TVNZ’s decision on complaint – 3 July 2023

3  O’Brien’s referral to Authority – 3 July 2023

4  TVNZ confirming no further comments – 14 September 2023

¹ Citing Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057
² Citing Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 15
³ Citing Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁶ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁷ See Wilberg and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-071 at [36]
⁸ Guideline 6.2
⁹ Guideline 6.1
¹⁰ “Ukraine dam: What we know about Nova Kakhovka incident” BBC (online ed, 8 June 2023); Peter Beaumont, Harvey Symons, Paul Scruton, Lucy Swan, Ashley Kirk and Elena Morresi “A visual guide to the collapse of Ukraine’s Nova Kakhovka dam” The Guardian (online ed, 9 June 2023); Kate Abnett “Ukraine says Kakhovka dam collapse caused 1.2 billion euros in damage” Reuters (online ed, 21 June 2023)
¹¹ Natalia Liubchenkova “In pictures: Kherson residents speak about life under constant shelling” EuroNews (online ed, 3 April 2023); Harry Taylor, Emily Dugan, Christine Kearney “Heavy shelling reported in Kharkiv region after overnight attacks in Kherson – as it happened” The Guardian (online ed, 30 April 2023); “Family killed in Russian shelling in Ukraine’s Kherson” Aljazeera (online ed, 13 August 2023)
¹² “Ukraine war: Why is control of Kherson so important?” BBC (online ed, 8 November 2022)
¹³ “Family killed in Russian shelling in Ukraine’s Kherson” Aljazeera (online ed, 13 August 2023)
¹⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁵ Guideline 5.1
¹⁶ Guideline 5.1
¹⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁸ Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057 at [16]