BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an RNZ news bulletin. The item briefly reported on the BBC’s apology concerning a live broadcast of music group Bob Vylan chanting ‘death, death to the IDF’, saying the apology described the chants as ‘antisemitic’. The complainant said the use of ‘antisemitic’ to describe the chants was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. Noting the statement was clearly attributed to the BBC and the context behind its statement was available to the audience, the Authority found the audience had the information needed to draw their own inferences and conclusions and would not be misled. The balance and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached.   

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about an interview on Morning Report with ‘[a]n Iranian woman, living in New Zealand … shocked by the scale of attacks from Israel on Iran’. The complainant alleged the broadcast ‘presented a one-sided narrative critical of Israel’, and omitted significant viewpoints — namely, those of ‘pro-Israel Iranians’ — and vital context. The complainant also alleged the broadcast contained material inaccuracies, by indicating Israel targeted residential buildings and misled listeners regarding the Iranian regime and Israel’s intentions. The Authority found the broadcast was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The audience could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage. Regarding accuracy, the interviewee’s comments about the targeting of buildings were analysis, comment or opinion to which the standard does not apply, and it was not misleading to omit further details regarding Iran or Israel.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp item which featured presenter Hilary Barry accompanying an entertainer and keen hunter on a seasonal duck shooting trip to mark the hunter’s appointment as the first patron of Fish & Game New Zealand. The complainant considered the item offensive in showing animal cruelty and disrespect for wildlife, inaccurate in stating ‘only introduced species’ are hunted in Aotearoa New Zealand (noting the patron shot a native paradise shelduck), and failed to reflect alternative perspectives on the cruelty and ecologically harmful effects of duck shooting. The Authority found the segment was a human-interest piece focused more on the patron than hunting and was consistent with the style and tone of Seven Sharp; viewers would not have been unduly surprised or disturbed by the content. Nor would viewers have been materially misled by the patron’s reference to ‘introduced species’ in the context of the piece. The human-interest focus on the new patron of Fish & Game meant the item did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue, so the balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Balance, Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item on the Government’s rejection of an application to officially change the town of Russell to its original name, Kororāreka. The complainants alleged an interviewee’s comment that those against the name change were ‘usually older… always white’ was racist and ageist; the accuracy of the same statement was ‘questionable’; and the item was unbalanced, biased and unfair by only including interviews with people who supported the name change. The Authority found: the interviewee’s comment was clearly opinion and did not reach the threshold for finding it denigrated any section of the community; the broadcast was clearly framed as being from the perspective of community members disappointed by the decision and it was sufficient under the balance standard to acknowledge the existence of the alternative perspective through comments from the Minister of Land Information about his decision not to change the name; and the issue has been the subject of other coverage by the broadcaster and elsewhere, meaning the likelihood of any real harm or the audience being left uninformed was reduced, and did not outweigh the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. 

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about an RNZ news bulletin reporting comments by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of the Republic of Türkiye. Erdoğan accused Israel of ‘aim[ing] to sabotage’ nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran through its airstrikes on Iran on 13 June 2025. The complainant alleged Erdoğan’s comments were untrue and that the broadcast was misleading by not detailing ‘the true sequence of events leading to Israel's attack on Iran’. The Authority found the brief, straightforward item did not amount to a ‘discussion’ for the purposes of the balance standard. It also found Erdoğan’s comments were analysis, comment, or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply, and the broadcast was not inaccurate or misleading by omission.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a political commentator’s use of the phrase ‘not piss … them off too much’ when discussing Coalition Government tensions. The complainant argued the phrase was offensive. In light of the Authority’s Complaints that are unlikely to succeed guidance and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine this complaint.  

Declined to Determine (section 11(b), Broadcasting Act 1989 — in all the circumstances, the complaint should not be determined):  Offensive and Disturbing Content

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on Mother’s Day profiling a women’s duck shooting group in the Hawke’s Bay. The complaint alleged the tone of the item was disrespectful to wildlife including native wildlife, through irreverent comments such as describing duck shooting as ‘fun’ and good for ‘mental health’, which was ‘deeply offensive’; and it lacked balance and accuracy by not telling the other side of the story from the growing number of people who oppose duck shooting, or providing broader context about wildlife decline including among the four native species that are ‘allowed to be shot’. The Authority found the item was clearly framed as a light-hearted human-interest story rather than an in-depth exploration of a controversial issue requiring balancing viewpoints. Its tone and content were unlikely to disproportionately disturb or offend most viewers, in the context. The complainant’s objection to the framing of a story about duck shooting, which is a lawful activity in New Zealand, is a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion and does not raise issues of harm that justify restricting freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Balance, Accuracy 

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that use of ‘Praise the Lorde’, in relation to New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde, breached broadcasting standards. Given the Authority’s guidance regarding blasphemy in its Complaints that are unlikely to succeed publication, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.  

Declined to determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing content, Balance

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that 1News’ ANZAC Day bulletin, which included coverage of Māori soldiers, the 28^th Māori Battalion and a pre-recorded story by 1News’ Māori Affairs Correspondent, breached the discrimination and denigration, balance and fairness standards. The Authority considered the relevant content appropriate to the context of the broadcast, which marked the first ANZAC Day without a surviving member of the 28^th Māori Battalion. It also found the complaint reflected the complainant’s own personal preferences on a matter for the broadcaster’s editorial discretion and did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that warranted determination.

Declined to determine (section 11(b), Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined): Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness

The Authority has upheld a direct privacy complaint about a 1News item regarding a TVNZ on-demand series investigating Destiny Church. The item featured excerpts of an interview from the series, with a former member of the church who participated on the condition her face would remain hidden. The complaint was that the interviewee’s facial features were visible in the broadcast, which in the complainant’s view represented a ‘grave failure’ by the broadcaster to meet its obligations to protect the interviewee, given the seriousness of the circumstances and risk of harm to them. TVNZ accepted there was a breach of the privacy standard on the basis the interviewee’s face was visible to some viewers in certain viewing conditions, which the interviewee had not consented to. The Authority agreed and upheld the complaint as a breach of the interviewee’s privacy. While the Authority did not have evidence of actual harm to the interviewee, it considered in all the circumstances the broadcaster’s error in failing to adequately mask the interviewee as promised was a serious one. The Authority therefore ordered TVNZ to pay $500 costs to the Crown to mark the error and send a signal to broadcasters.  

Upheld: Privacy. 

Order: Section 16(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, $500 costs to the Crown