BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on RNZ’s Sunday Morning programme with the author of the book, The Final Choice, in the lead-up to the binding referendum on the End of Life Choice Act. The End-of-Life Choice Society complained that the interview was unbalanced and inaccurate, as it presented the book as ‘the truth’, and did not question the author’s independence or her alleged religious affiliations. The Authority noted its role is limited to applying the relevant broadcasting standards and guidelines, and determining whether any harm was caused which outweighed the right to freedom of expression; it is not the Authority’s role to determine whether the author is ‘independent’, or to determine her personal view on the topic. With respect to balance, the Authority was satisfied that the End of Life Choice Act and related issues were widely covered by RNZ within the period of current interest in those topics, including views in support of the End of Life Choice Act. The interviewer and the author also acknowledged the existence of other views within the item, which was adequate in the context. Considering whether the item was inaccurate or misleading in the manner alleged, the Authority noted the interviewer questioned the author about the weighting of views in the book (17:4 opposed to assisted dying) and whether she approached it with any particular position of her own. Overall, the Authority did not find actual or potential harm at a level that justified regulatory intervention or restricting freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

The End-of-Life Choice Society NZ (EOLCS) complained about an item on The Project which included an interview with the author of the book, The Final Choice, in the lead-up to the binding End of Life Choice referendum. EOLCS was concerned that the interview portrayed the book as ‘an independent assessment of the issue’, which was biased and inaccurate. The Authority noted its role is limited to applying the relevant broadcasting standards and guidelines and determining whether any harm was caused which outweighed the right to freedom of expression; it is not the Authority’s role to determine whether the author is ‘independent’, or her personal view on the topic. The Authority did not uphold the balance complaint, as it considered the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints within the programme, and noted that the issue was widely covered throughout the legislative process for the End of Life Choice Act and likely to continue to be covered in the lead-up to the referendum. For similar reasons, and taking the broadcast item as a whole, the Authority did not consider viewers were likely to have been misled in the manner alleged in the complaint. The overarching message of the item, and the author’s interview, was encouraging New Zealanders to become more informed about the issue of end-of-life choice before deciding which way to vote in the upcoming referendum. Therefore upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an election advertisement for the Labour Party that included the statement, ‘Together we went hard and early to fight COVID...’ The complaint was that this statement breached broadcasting standards because it should have said the Labour Party ‘went hard and late’, on the basis it could have taken ‘some action at the border’ earlier than it did, to protect New Zealanders. The Authority found the statement was clearly opinion and advocacy promoting the Labour Party, rather than a statement of fact, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled. There was no actual or potential harm caused, to outweigh the importance of freedom of expression and free political speech in the lead up to the general election, or to justify regulatory intervention.

Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy), Election Programme Advocacy – Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy

The Authority upheld a complaint that a Checkpoint report summarising the complainant’s submission at a Waitematā local board public meeting was inaccurate and unfair to her. The item reported that ‘the sparks continued to fly when activist Lisa Prager described how she had claimed mana whenua status in her bid to save the trees [on Ōwairaka Mt Albert] but now regrets the move. [One] board member… refused to thank Ms Prager for her submission because, she said, her comments were “a bit racist”.’ The Authority agreed with Ms Prager that the use of the word ‘regrets’ did not accurately reflect her view expressed at the meeting: “...I retire any claim to being mana whenua whatsoever. But I have no regrets in standing up and initiating the conversation...” The Authority also agreed the manner in which the complainant’s views were reported had the potential to adversely affect her reputation and dignity, particularly alongside the suggestion that her submission was ‘a bit racist’. While audio of Ms Prager’s brief, heat-of-the-moment response to this allegation was included, given the seriousness of the accusation, and that it did not address the misreporting of her position overall, this was insufficient to meet requirements under the fairness standard.

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

Order: Section 16(1) $1,818 legal costs to the complainant

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a station identity promo for Newstalk ZB news, which listed the names of the station’s flagship presenters followed by the tagline, ‘all the names you can trust’, breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found the accuracy standard did not apply, as this was clearly a piece of station branding or marketing (rather than a news, current affairs or factual programme) and the tagline was clearly promotional, rather than making a statement of fact.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that visually displaying the word ‘dickhead’ onscreen during a Newshub item breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority considered that in the context of the item, which canvassed public opinion towards Simon Bridges, the visual depiction of the word ‘dickhead’ would not have caused widespread undue offence, or distress, and would not have undermined widely shared community values.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that use of the word ‘fuck’ in an episode of My Life is Murder, broadcast after 8.35pm without an ‘L’ advisory for offensive language, breached the good taste and decency standard. In the context, including the programme’s nature, classification and intended audience, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress.

Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency

An election advertisement for the Labour Party included the statement, ‘we’ll…make apprenticeships free to prepare for tomorrow’s jobs...’ The complainant argued that this statement was inaccurate because the apprenticeships are not free but paid for by the taxpayers. The Authority did not uphold the complaint finding that a reasonable viewer was unlikely to be misled by the programme.

Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy)

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Nation about the New Conservative Party breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the New Conservative Party was not a recognised section of the community for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard, and that the accuracy standard did not apply as the complaint concerned matters of analysis and opinion rather than statements of fact. The Authority also found that the New Conservative Party and Party members were not treated unfairly, noting that the scrutiny of political parties is a vital component of freedom of expression, and is of particular importance in the lead-up to a general election.

Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the reading of an adaptation of the novel My Name Was Judas by author C.K. Stead was offensive to Christians in breach of the good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority did not consider that the broadcast’s content was likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding that it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. The Authority also found that the balance standard did not apply as the programme was not a news, current affairs or factual programme.

Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance.