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 that an episode of Country House Hunters New Zealand breached the accuracy standard. In the episode, the host showed a couple around three houses in Greytown, each of which had ‘for sale’ signs on their fences indicating they were for sale through a particular real estate agency. The complainant considered it was misleading that the broadcaster did not disclose two of the houses were actually ‘off-market’ sales, and citing values for these houses would have given viewers an inflated impression of the market value of the houses, and the Greytown property market generally. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, noting Country House Hunters New Zealand does not purport to be an authoritative source of information on market prices, and the nature of the programme is such that the general audience would understand it may include scenarios which are manipulated to further the storyline. Nor did the broadcast make any claim that the prices cited for the houses were market value. Accordingly, viewers would not have been misled.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  An episode of the television series Country House Hunters New Zealand aired at 7pm on 4 February 2024 on TVNZ 1, featuring a couple who were looking to purchase a house in Greytown, Wairarapa. They were shown around three homes by the host but did not end up purchasing any.

[2]  The properties shown all had signs on their fences indicating they were for sale through a particular real estate company.

[3]  When discussing pricing, the host indicated to the couple that the ‘$1.6-1.7 million mark would probably secure’ the second and third homes shown.

The complaint

[4]  John Williams complained that the broadcast was misleading on the basis the second and third houses shown were not for sale on the open market at the time. He said:

• Both houses had ‘for sale’ signs on their fences, which clearly indicated to viewers that they ‘were “For sale” and on the “Open Market”, and were not “Off Market” properties at the time of filming.’
• ‘If houses two and three were being sold on the open market, the prices being quoted on the program should be around the market value of what the agents told them it should sell for, when they signed the agency agreement.’
• This misled viewers to believe ‘that the prices quoted were realistic market prices. But the second and third house[s] appear to have been priced at a higher level than one would expect they would sell for at the time.’ This had the potential ‘to mislead viewers on what the property values are in Greytown, and what those particular properties’ actual market values are.’
• ‘There is a big difference between a house that is on the open market, and one that isn't but where an owner may accept a cheeky high offer if it came along. People selling on the open market often need to sell so will accept the market value. People that don't need to sell may take a high speculative bid if it comes along if it is worth their while, but that isn't the market value.’
• The broadcast should have included a note to inform viewers that only one of the properties shown was on the open market.
• The broadcast also did not disclose to viewers that the second house was owned by the real estate agent.
• The programme is categorised as ‘factual’ on the TVNZ+ on demand platform, which leads viewers to believe information in the programme can be relied upon. It is not classified as ‘reality TV’ like some other programmes on the platform. By contrast, the programme Love Island is categorised as ‘reality TV,’ and is a programme where ‘viewers probably would expect to have “scenarios manipulated to further the storyline”, as quoted by TVNZ.’
• The UK programme Location, Location, Location, which runs to a very similar format and is also broadcast by TVNZ, is also listed as ‘factual’ on TVNZ+. To the complainant’s understanding, ‘if a house is about to come on the market but hasn't yet been listed, they mention this on the show.’

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  TVNZ considered Williams’ complaint under the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. It did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• ‘The production company has advised that the first home was on the open market at the time of filming but given the limited number of suitable properties in Greytown at the time, they approached a real estate agent for other options and the second and third house were off market properties, which would sell if they received offers at the quoted prices. The Real Estate agency signs were seen on the property as this was the real estate agent for all of the properties at that time.’
• ‘The second property was owned by the real estate agent themselves.’
• ‘[The accuracy] standard is designed to regulate material in news, current affairs and factual programmes. Country House Hunters New Zealand is primarily an entertainment programme. As it is a reality television series there is a reasonable expectation by viewers that sometimes scenarios may be manipulated to further the storyline.’
• ‘In this case, given that there was a lack of suitable houses for sale for the potential buyers a real estate agent was approached, and they provided two off-market properties which were available to purchase at the quoted prices. This scenario is the consequence of filming a property programme in small towns within a limited time period and [TVNZ] considers that it is acceptable practice in the context of a reality programme of this nature.’
• ‘[TVNZ] considers that viewers were not misled in terms of these properties, the couple could purchase all the properties for the prices quoted.’ The complainant’s distinction between ‘off market’ properties and ‘open market properties’ is not material or relevant to viewers’ understanding of this.
• In any event, the production company advised that the next season of the programme will make it explicitly clear to viewers when homes are featured that are not on the open market.

Jurisdiction

Did the complaint sufficiently allege a breach of broadcasting standards?

[6]  In order to constitute a ‘formal complaint’ under the Broadcasting Act 1989, a complaint must ‘constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with section 4’. In other words, it must constitute an allegation that the broadcaster has failed to comply with one or more of the broadcasting standards.

[7]  While Williams did not explicitly cite a particular broadcasting standard as being breached in his complaint to the broadcaster, a standard does not necessarily have to be raised explicitly if it can be reasonably implied into the wording, and where it is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint.¹ We are satisfied the language used in Williams’ complaint to the broadcaster (which raised concerns about the potentially misleading nature of the broadcast) can reasonably be interpreted as raising the accuracy standard, and that implying this standard is reasonably necessary to properly consider the complaint. This was also the approach taken by the broadcaster.

The standard

[8]  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.

Our analysis

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

[10]  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 and uphold a complaint where there is harm at a level that justifies placing a reasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.⁴

[11]  The first question under the accuracy standard is whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The standard is concerned only with material inaccuracies. Technical or unimportant points that are unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the programme as a whole are not considered material.⁵

[12]  The standard only applies to news, current affairs, or factual programming. Factual programmes are non-fiction programmes which contain information audiences might reasonably expect to be authoritative or truthful, such as documentaries which are presented as being trustworthy.⁶ It can include reality television programmes, depending on the nature of the specific programme or aspects of the programme.⁷ The Authority has previously stated the 'important criterion is whether a reasonable viewer or listener is entitled to expect that the information given in the programme will be truthful and authoritative, and not just opinion or hyperbole.’⁸

[13]  Country House Hunters New Zealand is described as a ‘series that captures the essence of living in New Zealand’s countryside. The show is all about helping couples find their perfect country house, all while exploring some rural attractions and meeting some of the locals.’⁹ The programme is a light-hearted entertainment reality TV programme, with each episode being around 22-23 minutes in length. It does include some factual aspects, such as information about the town and its attractions. However, it does not purport to be an authoritative source of information on the housing market or market prices in the towns it features. In our view, the nature of the programme is such that the general audience would understand it may include scenarios which are manipulated to further the storyline.

[14]  While the complainant has argued the programme is categorised as ‘factual’ on TVNZ+, rather than ‘reality TV’ – which leads viewers to believe information in the programme can be relied upon – we do not consider its categorisation on the on-demand platform is determinative of the overall nature of the programme and how its scenarios are developed.

[15]  We do not need to make a finding on this point, as in any case we do not consider the programme was misleading. The complainant is concerned that this episode of Country House Hunters New Zealand gave the false impression that the second and third houses shown to the couple were for sale on the open market rather than off-market. He considers indicating they were each worth $1.6-1.7 million was therefore misleading in relation to the actual market value of the homes and in Greytown generally (ie it gave the impression house prices were higher than they actually were). He also considers it was misleading for the broadcast not to have disclosed the second house was owned by the real estate agent.

[16]  The broadcast may have given the impression that the second and third houses were for sale on the open market, through featuring ‘for sale’ signs on the fences. ‘For sale’ signs typically indicate that houses are for sale on the open market. However, the broadcaster has advised the houses were in fact able to be purchased, and it was not material to viewers’ understanding of this whether they were on the open market or off-market.

[17]  Further, we do not consider viewers would have been misled as to the Greytown housing market or the potential value of these particular houses. The broadcaster has advised the houses were able to be purchased at the cited valuation, and in any event, the broadcast did not make any claim that the prices cited for the houses were market value.

[18]  We do not consider it was misleading for the broadcast not to have disclosed the second house was owned by the real estate agent. The house was available for purchase regardless.

[19]  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
2 September 2024    

Appendix

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

1  Williams’ formal complaint to TVNZ – 5 February 2024

2  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 30 April 2024

3  Williams’ amended referral to the Authority – 27 June 2024

4  TVNZ’s further comments – 8 July 2024

5  Williams’ further comments – 15 July 2024

6  TVNZ’s further comments – 2 August 2024

¹ Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand 
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 6.2
⁶ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁷ See Francis and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2023-037 at [6]; and Noble and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-030 at [27]
⁸ See Accident Compensation Corporation and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2006-126 at [14]; and Noble and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2014-030 at [26]
⁹ Abode Entertainment “Our Shows: Country House Hunters New Zealand”