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 two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination.

Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

Item concerning Israel-Hamas conflict 

[1]  A segment on 1News broadcast on 10 December 2023 included an item that discussed a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict. The protest was described as follows:

Host:   Several thousand pro-Palestinian supporters marched through Auckland City today calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza… They later plastered the doors of the US consulate with pictures of children they say have been killed by Israel. They also condemned the United States for its military and financial support of Israel.

[2]  The update on the Israel-Hamas conflict then depicted the impacts of Israel’s attacks (including deaths and starvation within the Palestinian population) and described international pressure on Israel as well as Israel’s resistance to scaling back attacks before the ‘elimination of Hamas’.

Item concerning aid funding for Ukraine

[3]  The 1News broadcast on 10 December 2023 then included an item that reported on funding issues faced by the Ukrainian Government during the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

[4]  The host introduced the item:

Ukrainians will be left to die if the West doesn’t… continue its support. That’s the warning from the country’s first lady. It comes as the US Senate blocked an aid bill for Ukraine worth nearly $100 million.

[5]  The segment also included clips from a report by BBC reporter Laura Kuenssberg outlining top donors to Ukraine, noting concerns about whether the United States’ support will continue and including an interview with Ukrainian First Lady Olena Zelenska. This report included the following excerpts:

Kuenssberg: Ukrainian forces on the frontline in eastern Ukraine. Weapons, tanks, paid for in part by billions of pounds, dollars, and euros from Western taxpayers like you and me.

Zelenska: We do need aid desperately. In simple terms, we cannot get tired of the situation because otherwise we will die, and if the world gets tired, they will simply let us die.

Zelenska: I think today there is a problem with the world in general. We are used to the world appearing calm. In fact, and that’s what we’ve been saying for the past two years now, is that aggression, if not stopped, spreads like a virus.

Kuenssberg: While there are doubts about America’s resolve to keep paying, Russia’s brute force on the frontline shows little sign of fading, leaving Ukraine with a sense of foreboding.

[6]  The segment closed with the host saying:

And US President Joe Biden has said a failure to agree on aid for Ukraine would be a gift for Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The complaints

Complaint A 

[7]  Peter Wakeman complained the Israel-Hamas item breached the offensive and disturbing content, promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. His key concerns were that the broadcaster ‘failed to show how responsible the US is for this conflict’ and should have included more thorough examinations and condemnations of the actions of the US and Israel throughout this conflict.

Complaint B 

[8]  Wakeman complained the Ukraine funding item breached the offensive and disturbing content, promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. His key concerns were that the reporting amounted to:

• Supporting the Ukrainian narrative without sufficient scrutiny of Ukraine’s actions in the conflict.
• ‘Promoting Neo-Nazi behaviour and condoning it’ (given the broadcast does not challenge any of Ukraine’s ‘current actions’).
• Denigration of Russia by not explaining ‘their narrative’.
• Unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair reporting due to the failure to cover Russian perspectives (including Russia’s reasons for the war, other countries’ contributions to the war and to the failure of peace talks) and due to the misleading suggestion that Ukraine ‘has a chance of winning’ and that ‘supplying weapons is going to help Ukraine’.

[9]  Unprompted, Wakeman also provided extensive further submissions to the Authority after his referral. The Authority has previously found that natural justice does not encompass the right to have irrelevant and excessive submissions and supporting material considered by the Authority.¹ These further submissions were not considered by the Authority.

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  TVNZ did not uphold either of Wakeman’s complaints, as with respect to each standard raised, Wakeman either had not provided any arguments relevant under the standard, the standard did not apply, or it was not breached.

Outcome: Decline to Determine

[11]  The members of the Authority have viewed the broadcast and have read the correspondence listed in the appendix.

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

[13]  The policy behind s11 is that the time and resources of the Authority, which are, in the end, sustained by broadcasters and by the people of New Zealand, should not be wasted in having to deal with matters which objectively have no importance.²

[14]  We decline to determine these complaints for the following reasons:

• Complaint A: The complainant has not made any specific allegations relevant to the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, discrimination and denigration, accuracy or fairness standards.
• Complaint B: The complainant has not made any specific or relevant allegations regarding the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards.
• Complaints A and B:
  (a)  Much of the submissions do not relate to the items broadcast. Those that do, concern matters of personal preference, namely matters the complainant considers should be included or be the focus or lens through which events are reported, and/or do not identify issues of a threshold justifying limitation of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.
  (b)  As identified in our previous decisions concerning complaints from Wakeman,³ such matters of personal preference do not raise broadcasting standards issues.⁴
  (c)  Additionally, TVNZ has provided substantive and satisfactory responses to the original complaints. We consider its responses went above and beyond what might reasonably be expected for complaints of this nature.

Final comments

[15]  We note Wakeman has previously made multiple similar complaints relating to TVNZ broadcasts on the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.⁵ The current complaints, and associated submissions, suggest he has not read or learnt from any previous Authority decisions on his complaints, nor engaged with the wording in the Code of Broadcasting Standards or any of our website guidance regarding the nature and scope of the various broadcasting standards. We would strongly encourage the complainant to take the time to understand the standards he is complaining under before engaging further in this process.

[16]  The complainant has also previously been warned about excessive submissions and been required to resubmit his complaints.⁶

[17]  The submissions made by Wakeman with respect to these complaints totalled 162 pages. These included large transcripts from separate news broadcasts, reproductions of news articles, a transcript of an interview between President Putin and Tucker Carlson, and copies of court documents from the International Court of Justice. Wakeman also included links to seven YouTube videos totalling approximately 3.5 hours. These figures do not include the additional submissions not considered by the Authority.

[18]  We note we have previously warned the complainant it may be open to the broadcaster to request the Authority make an order for reimbursement of reasonable costs of dealing with excessive submissions.⁷ TVNZ have not elected to do so on this occasion.

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

Susie Staley
Chair
7 May 2024  

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined these complaints:

Complaint A

1  Peter Wakeman’s formal complaint – 13 December 2023

2  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 26 January 2024

3  Wakeman’s referral to the Authority – 13 February 2024

Complaint B

4  Wakeman’s formal complaint – 13 December 2023

5  TVNZ’s response to the complaint – 26 January 2024

6  Wakeman’s referral to the Authority – 13 February 2024

7  Wakeman’s further submissions – 5 March 2024

¹ Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. ID2023-050 at [7]-[8]
² Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Guidance: BSA power to decline to determine a complaint”
³ Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-050 at [10]; Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-005 at [18] and [21]; Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057 at [19]
⁴ See section 5(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, which states complaints based merely on a complainant’s preferences are not, in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure. See also Greenslade and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2021-105 at [6] for a similar finding. See also Broadcasting Standards Authority “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” (see “Personal Preference”)
⁵ See Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision ID2023-050; Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-050; Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-005; and Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-057.
⁶ See Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision ID2023-050 at [11]
⁷ See Wakeman and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-005 at [21]