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 concerning the deaths of over 125 people at Kanjuruhan Stadium in Indonesia breached the balance and accuracy standards. The complainant alleged it was offensive and careless to compare this tragedy to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, as in Hillsborough the ‘fans played no role in causing the disaster.’ The Authority found the balance standard did not apply as the broadcast’s mention of other disasters at football stadiums did not constitute a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the standard. It did not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard as it was not misleading to suggest Hillsborough was one of football’s worst tragedies.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  On 3 October 2022, a broadcast of 1 News aired an item concerning the tragedy at Kanjuruhan Stadium in Indonesia, in which 125 people died. The item included the following comments:

The Indonesian tragedy is among football's worst. The biggest loss of life came in 1964, more than three hundred during a crowd crush in Lima, Peru. In 1989, nearly 100 Liverpool supporters died in an overcrowded and fenced in enclosure in Hillsborough. Now another stadium is added to that list. 

The complaint

[2]  Adrian Porter complained the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following key reasons:

• ‘Whilst investigations continue into the incident, this was caused by a pitch invasion by rival supporters. Whilst what happened afterwards is clearly a tragedy, the inference of the report suggests the Hillsborough Disaster in 1989 was a similar event.’
• ‘The inquest in 2016 into the Hillsborough Disaster found that 96 Liverpool supporters were unlawfully killed and that fans played no role in causing the disaster.’
• ‘I find it very offensive that the Hillsborough Disaster was grouped, even compared, with the Indonesian Tragedy and the Peruvian Disaster in 1964 which was caused by fans’ disapproval of a refereeing decision.’
• ‘This kind of careless reporting only goes to enhance and misrepresent what happened at Hillsborough 33 years ago. I was extraordinarily offended by the report and would like a full apology on One News.’

[3]  On referral to the Authority, Porter added the following key comments:

• The issue is controversial and of topical currency in New Zealand, referring to recent reports on certain chants at Anfield Stadium,¹ and ‘ongoing debate and misrepresentation’ of the tragedy online. Porter also referred to a thesis on the tragedy which ‘accurately in its conclusion describes what the survivors 33 years on still have to put up with.’
• The report mentioning Hillsborough in the same report as two stadium disasters ‘caused by fan riots’ inferred the causes were similar.

The broadcaster’s response

[4]  TVNZ did not uphold Porter’s complaint for the following key reasons:

Balance

• ‘The Hillsborough disaster was mentioned briefly in the report as one example of two football stadium disasters of a similar magnitude to the Indonesian tragedy. The circumstances of the three disasters were not directly compared.’ On this basis it was not ‘discussed’ as required by the balance standard.
• TVNZ did not agree that the Hillsborough Disaster constituted a controversial issue of public importance. ‘The Hillsborough disaster is an historic event, not an issue with topical currency in New Zealand and not the subject of ongoing debate.’
• ‘In any case, there was no suggestion in the Programme that the supporters in Hillsborough were responsible for causing the tragedy, or that the circumstances in Hillsborough were the same as the Indonesian riot. The Hillsborough disaster was mentioned because it was a significant football stadium tragedy, with great loss of life. It should be noted that when the second coronial inquest into the Hillsborough disaster, which found that supporters were not responsible was released in 2016, it was reported by 1 News.’

Accuracy

• ‘The Committee disagrees that the report invited the inference that the causes and circumstances of the Hillsborough disaster were similar or the same as those of the Peruvian and Indonesian disasters. The Hillsborough tragedy was referred to in the report because it was a noteworthy football stadium tragedy.’
• ‘The Hillsborough tragedy was touched on briefly. The circumstances of the tragedy and the results of the coronial inquest were outside the scope of the report.’
• ‘The report did not imply that the supporters in Hillsborough were responsible for the tragedy.’

The standards

[5]  The balance standard² ensures competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.³ The standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes, which discuss a controversial issue of public importance.⁴

[6]  The purpose of the accuracy standard⁵ is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁶ 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.

Our analysis

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

[8]  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

Balance

[9]  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’.⁸

[10]  For an issue to be ‘discussed’ under the balance standard, the broadcast should constitute investigative or in-depth work – brief news reports, programmes clearly focused on a particular perspective, or personal or human interest stories, may not amount to a discussion.⁹

[11]  This broadcast was focused on reporting the events at Kanjuruhan Stadium in Indonesia, and the causes and consequences of this tragedy. It was not an in-depth piece comparing football stadium tragedies, or focused on the history of such tragedies. Hillsborough was mentioned once during the programme, providing context for ‘football’s worst’ tragedies. This does not constitute a ‘discussion’ of the Hillsborough tragedy, or a discussion of the event’s similarities or differences to the tragedy at Kanjuruhan Stadium. Viewers would not have expected further discussion regarding the cause of the Hillsborough tragedy in this context.¹⁰

[12]  On this basis the balance standard did not apply.

Accuracy

[13]  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:¹¹

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

[14]  The broadcast stated ‘The Indonesian tragedy is among football's worst.’ After this it briefly described the disasters in Lima, Peru in 1964, and Hillsborough in 1989. It then stated ‘Now another stadium is added to that list.’ These comments constitute analysis of the events at Kanjuruhan Stadium that place them in a historical context of other disasters at football stadiums.

[15]  The analysis here was that these three tragedies (Kanjuruhan, Lima and Hillsborough) were ‘among football's worst’. It did not state any of the tragedies had the same causes, or assign blame to fans, officials or police. The broadcast’s analysis linked the tragedies only through being ‘among football's worst’. It is not misleading to suggest Hillsborough was one of football’s worst tragedies.

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

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

Susie Staley
Chair
8 February 2023    

Appendix

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

1  Adrian Porter’s formal complaint to TVNZ - 3 October 2022

2  TVNZ's decision on the complaint - 28 October 2022

3  Porter's referral to the Authority - 28 October 2022

4  TVNZ confirming no further comments - 7 November 2022

¹ Referring to AP sports reporters “Liverpool and Manchester City's bitter rivalry boils over at Anfield” Stuff (17 October 2022)
² Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 14
⁴ Guideline 5.1
⁵ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 16
⁷ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 4
⁸ Guideline 5.1
⁹ As above; and see Carapiet and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-081 at [20]–[21]
¹⁰ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand at page 15
¹¹ Guideline 6.1