BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

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 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 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 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 an accuracy complaint about a statement, ‘the Government's shiny new Investment Boost scheme allows businesses to claim back 20% off their tax bill when purchasing new assets’, in a 1News item reporting on features of Budget 2025. The complaint concerned an inaccurate reference to deductions being from the ‘tax bill’ of a business rather than its ‘taxable income’. The Authority found the statement overstated the tax savings available under the Investment Boost scheme which was a material error in the context. As the correct information was readily available to TVNZ, it also found reasonable efforts were not made to ensure accuracy.

Upheld: Accuracy

No order

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview with Dame Jacinda Ardern on RNZ National, in which presenter Jesse Mulligan used the word ‘prick’ when asking Ardern about a past comment she made in Parliament. The complaint alleged the use of this language breached multiple standards. The Authority found it was low-level language that would not have surprised or offended most listeners in the context or alarmed or distressed any children who happened to be listening. The remaining standards did not apply.  

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal and Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a 1News item breached the discrimination and denigration, and accuracy standards by stating allegations of a ‘white genocide’ in South Africa were a ‘conspiracy theory’ and omitting to include footage shown by United States President Donald Trump to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. The Authority found the statement and omission of footage were not materially misleading because the ‘white genocide’ allegations have been repeatedly debunked and widely discredited, with numerous sources calling the allegations a ‘conspiracy theory’. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that presenters’ comments during a fundraising appeal promotion for Rhema Media’s Sanctuary Radio breached the accuracy standard. The presenters referred to the station as ‘listener funded’ which the complainant argued was misleading as Rhema Media also receives income from commercial businesses, charities and other sources. The broadcaster confirmed it is 85% listener funded, with listener support and contributions crucial to its identity and operations. The Authority found the term ‘listener funded’ in the context was part of brand messaging and audience engagement intended to rally support, rather than stating as fact the station is 100% listener funded. The Authority considered the risk of listeners being materially misled was low and did not justify restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression in the way it presented its fundraising promotion.

Not Upheld: Accuracy 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about a 1News report on the start of a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, and the first hostage/prisoner exchange as part of the deal. The complaint included claims the broadcast: failed to identify the West Bank as occupied; inaccurately cited how many were killed at the Nova festival and the identity of those attending the festival; inaccurately described the origin of the cars in the ‘car wall’; used ‘gratuitous adjectival framing to discredit Palestinian supporters’; and was overall unbalanced. Noting the challenges of verifying certain facts presented in the broadcast, the Authority did not uphold the complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy, or the relevant points were not materially inaccurate or misleading. The balance standard was not breached because it does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented without bias; significant alternative perspectives were included in the broadcast; and there was widespread reporting of significant perspectives on the hostage exchange and the Israel-Hamas conflict generally.                                                        

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy