BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

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

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint an item on Newshub Live at 6pm breached the accuracy and balance standards, for including a statement linking the Auckland Anniversary floods to climate change. The complainant considered the broadcast should not have contained reference to climate change, and that climate change should not be presented as fact. Given the Authority has previously found the existence of climate change caused by humans is not a controversial issue of public importance for the purpose of the balance standard, and the accuracy standard is only concerned with material statements of fact, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.

Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy, Balance

The broadcast

[1]  During the introduction to an item on the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Weekend floods, broadcast on Newshub Live at 6pm on 28 January 2023, the host stated:

It was rain unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. A deluge that will go down in the record books as Auckland’s wettest day ever. The flooding proved fatal; three people died and a fourth is missing. An unknown number of houses and cars are beyond repair, or will need expensive repair. Aucklanders have been left in no doubt about the effects of climate change.

The complaint

[2]  Joanne Rolston complained to the broadcaster under Media Council principles of ‘accuracy, fairness and balance’, ‘comment and fact’, and ‘subterfuge’, on the basis the floods were still occurring when the broadcast aired, and it was ‘not the time’ to be stating the cause was climate change, and that further, climate change ‘should not be presented as fact’.

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) did not uphold the complaint, (and as the complaint related to a broadcast rather than print media, nominated the accuracy standard as the most relevant broadcasting standard to apply to the complaint) advising that it had been widely accepted the January flooding in Auckland was linked to climate change. 

Referral to the Authority

[4]  On referral to the Authority, the complainant nominated the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, stating the broadcast used the Auckland floods to ‘push “climate change,” a political agenda which has no place here’.

[5]  Under section 8(1B) of the Act, 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 in order to properly consider the complaint.¹

[6]  While the initial complaint to the broadcaster referred to Media Council principles, we consider it is open to us to consider the complaint under both the accuracy and balance standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards (as per the referral). The initial complaint raised concerns relating to both accuracy and balance, and one of the Media Council principles nominated was ‘accuracy, fairness and balance.’ Further, the Broadcasting Act 1989 requires us to provide ‘as little formality and technicality as is permitted’ for the proper consideration of the complaint.²

Outcome: decline to determine

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

[8]  Section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint if it considers that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.

[9]  In this case, the Authority considers it appropriate to exercise its section 11(b) discretion due to the following factors:

• The balance standard only applies where a broadcast discusses a controversial issue of public importance.³ The Authority has previously recognised that the ‘existence of climate change caused by humans is not a controversial issue of public importance’.⁴
• The complainant’s objection to the programme referencing climate change while the weather event was still ongoing is an issue of personal preference (as to what they believe should or should not have been broadcast). Such complaints are not, in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure.⁵
• The accuracy standard is only concerned with material points of fact which are likely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.⁶ The comment about climate change did not amount to a material point of fact in the context of a nearly five minute segment focusing on Aucklanders’ experience of the city’s wettest day on record, which had resulted in loss of life and significant damage.

For the above reasons the Authority declines to determine this complaint.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
26 July 2023    

Appendix

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

1  Joanne Rolston’s formal complaint – 29 January 2023

2  WBD’s response to the complaint – 27 February 2023

3  Rolston’s referral to the Authority – 21 March 2023

4  WBD’s confirmation of no further comment – 27 March 2023

¹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Broadcasting Act 1989, s 10(2)(b)
³ Guideline 5.1
⁴ Allison and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-049 at [10]; and Foster and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-125 at [19] and [20]
⁵ See Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are Unlikely to Succeed” <bsa.govt.nz> at “Personal Preference”
⁶ Guideline 6.2