BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary 

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has upheld complaints that a 1News item about the arrest of the suspect in the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, breached the accuracy standard in its reporting of comments made by President of the United States Donald Trump. In its introduction, the report stated, ‘[W]hen the President was asked what he’d do to unite the country after this tragedy, he said, “I couldn’t care less,” blaming the radical left, and vowing to go after political violence.’ This was accompanied by a large banner with a photograph of Trump and the words, ‘I couldn’t care less.’ While the broadcaster indicated it was their genuine interpretation of the comments, the Authority found this was inaccurate, as Trump actually said, ‘Well, I’ll tell you something that’s gonna get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less.’ An excerpt of the interview where Trump made this statement was shown later in the broadcast, but the Authority did not consider this resolved the inaccuracy. Other aspects of the complaints, including under the fairness and balance standards, were not upheld.

Upheld: Accuracy

Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness

Order: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement

The broadcast

[1]  The 13 September 2025 broadcast of 1News included an item about the suspect in the shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson, being taken into custody. In introducing the segment, the 1News presenter said:

He’ll be in court next week, facing multiple charges, including an aggravated murder charge, obstruction of justice, and felony discharge of a firearm. He was arrested after confessing to his father. Authorities say Robinson had become increasingly political in recent years. But when the President was asked what he’d do to unite the country after this tragedy, he said, ‘I couldn’t care less,’ blaming the radical left, and vowing to go after political violence.

[2]  During this introduction, a large banner was shown in the background with a photograph of President of the United States Donald Trump and the words, ‘I couldn’t care less.’

[3]  The item went on to give details of Robinson’s background, how he was apprehended, and possible motivations for his actions.

[4]  It then stated Trump had announced the arrest on Fox & Friends that day, and showed the following excerpt of Trump sitting with Fox & Friends presenters:

Fox presenter:           How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?

President Trump:     Well, I’ll tell you something that’s gonna get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. [brief cut] The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy. 

The complaints

[5]  We received three complaints about this broadcast, from Edwin Arron, Pam More and Christian Jordan. All three complainants considered the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, for the following reasons:

• Trump’s comment, ‘I couldn’t care less,’ was taken out of context. While the broadcast stated at the beginning that Trump had said he ‘couldn’t care less’ about reuniting the country (emphasised with the background banner), he had actually said he ‘couldn’t care less’ about getting into trouble for comments he was about to make. (Arron, More and Jordan)
• The comment was ‘an introductory statement warning that people may not like the comments he was about to make about the radicals on the left’. (Jordan)
• If a viewer had only seen the beginning of the item, they would not have realised Trump’s comment was taken out of context. (More and Jordan)
• The fuller (albeit partial and edited) response being shown later in the item did not resolve the inaccuracy, and the snippets shown also misrepresented the question posed by the Fox & Friends presenter, reinforcing the interpretation Trump ‘couldn’t care less’ about uniting the country. (Jordan)
• In reference to Trump’s full interview on Fox & Friends, Trump’s comments that ‘success is going to bring us together’ were not reported, which also reinforced the sentiment the President ‘couldn’t care less’ about unifying the country. (Jordan)
• The broadcaster’s argument that other media outlets reported the President’s comments in a similar way did not justify the inaccuracy. (More and Jordan)

[6]  Arron and Jordan considered the balance standard was breached on the basis the inaccuracy indicated bias against Trump. Jordan considered the intention was to ‘aggravate ill will or disdain towards President Trump’.

[7]  More also said the item was ‘unbalanced’ in her referral to the Authority. Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, we are only able to consider complaints under standard(s) raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster.¹ More’s original complaint only raised the accuracy standard, and her arguments directly related to that standard. We are therefore unable to consider the balance standard as part of More’s complaint. However, as noted, it has been raised by the other complainants.

[8]  Arron also cited the fairness standard, on the basis it was unfair to Trump, and to viewers, to take his statement out of context and portray him negatively, by making it seem like he did not care about uniting the country.

The broadcaster’s response

[9]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaints.

[10]  With regard to accuracy, TVNZ said:

• ‘TVNZ recognises there is some ambiguity in the US President’s statement, but we consider the interpretation is reasonable in the circumstances. Donald Trump is unconventionally irreverent and unpredictable in both his communication style and in his leadership, and a lack of commitment to unifying the country is broadly consistent with other statements in the interview including the brief excerpts shown in the 1News report in which he vindicates the “radical right” but demonises the “radical left”, describing them as “vicious” and “horrible”.’
• ‘[TVNZ] notes that it is correct to say that when Donald Trump was asked about uniting the country he said “I couldn’t care less,” and it is also correct to say he was blaming the radical left and vowing to go after political violence.’ (TVNZ’s emphasis)
• ‘Viewers were able to assess the merits of the interpretation themselves, given the relevant excerpt of Donald Trump’s appearance on Fox & Friends was shown in full in the 1News report.’
• ‘The report was chiefly concerned with developments in the case of Charlie Kirk’s assassination; Donald Trump’s comments were peripheral and not material to viewers’ understanding of the assassination or the murder investigation.’
• The 1News report was not focused on Trump’s Fox & Friends appearance and the extent to which he intended to unify the country in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, ‘therefore it was not necessary to reference his vague comments about “bringing the country together with success”.’
• The snippets of the President’s response to the question were ‘simply two relevant parts of Donald Trump’s response being cut together (with a visually obvious technique to make it clear to viewers that this has occurred). This is a commonplace technique in news reporting and did not create a misleading impression of Donald Trump’s response.’
• TVNZ’s interpretation of the President’s statement was consistent with other reporting on the matter at the time by other reputable media outlets,² which showed there were different interpretations available, and that ‘the way in which 1News framed Mr Trump’s response to the Fox & Friends question was not unusual or unique’. There had been no corrections to these reports.
• The broadcast represented TVNZ’s genuine interpretation of the President’s comments after viewing the Fox & Friends footage, in the context of a busy newsroom where ‘decisions are made on the spot’.

[11]  Under balance, TVNZ said:

• For the balance standard to apply, a news item must discuss a ‘controversial issue of public importance’. ‘Although the assassination of Charlie Kirk clearly holds interest to some New Zealand viewers, we disagree that it is a controversial issue in the sense envisaged by this Standard, noting that the report was essentially straight news reporting regarding the latest developments in this case, not a detailed examination of the related politics of Mr Kirk nor of contemporary political matters.’
• The broadcast contained various significant viewpoints in relation to the assassination, and the complaints do not allege the absence of a significant viewpoint.
• ‘The issues surrounding Charlie Kirk’s death have been extensively covered in surrounding media and viewers have had opportunity to source alternative viewpoints…’

[12]  With regard to fairness, TVNZ was ‘satisfied that the 1News broadcast cannot reasonably be considered unfair to a person in the position of Donald Trump’. It acknowledged that ‘there is doubt as to the President’s intended meaning in relation to the comments in question’, but considered that ‘in any case, the interpretation made by 1News is broadly consistent with his extended comments and was not condemnatory of Mr Trump’.

The standards

[13]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ The standard states:⁴

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[14]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁵ The standard states:⁶

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[15]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁷ The standard states:⁸

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

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

[17]  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 and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁹

[18]  We recognise the report, which covered the arrest of the suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination (an internationally significant news event), was newsworthy and carried value and public interest. However, we have found the potential harm from inaccurate reporting of the President’s comments outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The harm was not only the potential for the audience to be misled about what Trump said in this particular instance. More broadly, in the current media and political environment, the significance of reliable and accurate media reporting cannot be understated.¹⁰ Audiences expect news media to report carefully and accurately on statements made by political figures, particularly where that forms the basis for scrutiny or criticism of them. We have also previously given guidance to TVNZ and other broadcasters about the importance of ensuring facts are not overstated in introducing items, in the absence of relevant context.¹¹

[19]  We explain our reasons below, with a focus on accuracy, which we consider to be the standard most relevant to the complainants’ concerns.

Accuracy

[20]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[21]  The standard is not concerned with technical or other points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.¹²

[22]  The complainants’ key concern is the 1News presenter’s statement at the beginning of the item, ‘But when the President was asked what he’d do to unite the country after this tragedy, he said, “I couldn’t care less,”’ was inaccurate.

[23]  The requirement for factual accuracy does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact. We are satisfied the statement about what the President said in response to Fox & Friends’ question constitutes a matter of fact.  

[24]  In determining the accuracy of the 1News presenter’s statement, we reviewed the relevant part of the Fox & Friends interview.¹³ As partially shown later in the TVNZ item, the relevant exchange was:

Fox presenter:           How do we– what do we do about our country with that? Because we have radicals on the right as well. We have radicals on the left. People have gotten– are watching all of these videos and cheering. Some people are cheering that Charlie was killed. How do we fix this country? How do we come back together? 

President Trump:      Well, I’ll tell you something that’s going to get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right, oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. They don’t want to see crime. 

Fox presenter:           Worried about the border. 

President Trump:     They’re saying we don’t want these people coming in. We don’t want you burning our shopping centres. We don’t want you shooting our people in the middle of the street. The radicals on the left are the problem. And they’re vicious. And they’re horrible. And they’re politically savvy – although they want men in women’s sports, they want transgender for everyone, they want open borders. The worst thing that happened in this country– because I’ve already solved inflation, costs are down. Look at energy costs, you’re going to have $2 gasoline pretty soon. I’ve solved just about every problem. The worst thing that happened to our country is when we let 25 million people in, many of which – and I say 80% – should not be in our country. [continues]

[25]  We do not consider TVNZ’s interpretation of Trump’s comments, ‘[W]hen the President was asked what he’d do to unite the country after this tragedy he said, “I couldn’t care less",’ was reasonable. Upon viewing the President’s full comment, including the intonation and delivery, we agree with the complainants that the obvious interpretation was that the phrase ‘I couldn’t care less’ related to getting into trouble for comments he was about to make. While, to some, the comments that followed in relation to the ‘radical right’ and the ‘radical left’ may not have been indicative of a wish to unify the country, it remains incorrect to state that the President directly responded, ‘I couldn’t care less,’ to a question of what he would do to unite the country in the wake of Kirk’s death. This inaccuracy was compounded by a background banner shown as the statement was made, with a photograph of the President and the words, ‘I couldn’t care less,’ in bold.

[26]  The fact that the President’s general response to the question included the words ‘I couldn’t care less,’ does not render TVNZ’s statement accurate.

[27]  TVNZ argued that viewers would have been able to assess the merits of 1News’ interpretation themselves, given a fuller excerpt (two snippets) of the President’s response to the question was shown later in the item. This was:

Fox presenter:           How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?

President Trump:     Well, I’ll tell you something that’s gonna get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don’t want to see crime. [cut to next snippet] The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible and they’re politically savvy.

[28]  This excerpt did show the full comment, ‘Well, I’ll tell you something that’s gonna get me in trouble, but I couldn’t care less.’ However, due to the prominence of the item’s introduction, this brief excerpt in the middle of an item largely focused on other aspects, was insufficient to mitigate the inaccuracy; it was overshadowed by the emphasis placed on the edited quote in the introduction. There was a real risk of viewers being significantly misled as to the President’s comments had they focused primarily on the introduction.

[29]  Nor do we agree the President’s comments constituted a minor or peripheral point immaterial to the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole. While the comments were not the focus of the report (which was the arrest of the suspect in Kirk’s assassination) they were nevertheless flagged as a key aspect of the item through the introduction and accompanying banner. They also contributed to a theme of political and social division explored as background to Kirk’s assassination through, for example, the report’s reference to the suspect’s political views, and concerns about the influence of social media. They were therefore material to the audience’s understanding of the item.   

[30]  We acknowledge TVNZ’s submission that other media outlets interpreted, and reported on, the President’s comments in a similar way. It submitted this was evidence other interpretations of the comments were reasonably available. We note the articles cited by TVNZ are in print and not directly comparable to this broadcast. In any event, our focus is on this particular broadcast, and the articles cited do not persuade us there were multiple interpretations reasonably available, and do not change our finding.

[31]  One complainant considered the snippets shown also misrepresented the question posed by the Fox & Friends presenter, reinforcing the interpretation the President ‘couldn’t care less’ about uniting the country. The presenter’s question, in full, was (emphasis added):

How do we– what do we do about our country with that? Because we have radicals on the right as well. We have radicals on the left. People have gotten– are watching all of these videos and cheering. Some people are cheering that Charlie was killed. How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?

[32]  In this context, the President’s comments about the radical left might be more readily seen as responding to the Fox presenter’s observations about ‘radicals’, rather than an isolated question about uniting the country. Omission of this context did not, in our view, cause or materially contribute to the inaccuracy created by the story’s introduction. However, we agree the additional context may have assisted the audience’s interpretation of the President’s remarks.

[33]  The broadcast’s omission of the President’s comments that ‘success is going to bring us together,’ was also said to contribute to a misleading impression of his response. The President made comments to this effect more than 20 minutes after the question of how to come back together as a country was posed to him, and after he was asked several other questions.¹⁴ They did not form part of his response to the question reported on. In this context, and where the report was focused on the arrest of the suspect in Kirk’s assassination, it was not misleading to leave these comments out.

Did the broadcaster make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy?

[34]  Having found the statement that the President responded, ‘I couldn’t care less’ to a question about unifying the country was materially inaccurate, we go on to consider whether the broadcaster nevertheless made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast.

[35]  The assessment of whether a broadcaster made ‘reasonable efforts’ includes consideration of the following:¹⁵

• the source of the content broadcast
• whether the broadcast was live or pre-recorded
• whether there was some obvious reason to question the accuracy of the programme content before it was broadcast
• the extent to which the issue of accuracy was reasonably capable of being determined by the broadcaster.

[36]  We do not consider the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of its statement and its treatment of Trump’s response in the item’s introduction, noting the broadcast was pre-recorded and the statement’s accuracy was clearly capable of being determined by the broadcaster, given they had the clip of Trump’s full comments.

[37]  TVNZ maintained the broadcast represented its genuine interpretation of the comments after viewing the Fox & Friends footage, in the context of a fast-paced newsroom. However, as noted above, we do not consider this interpretation was reasonably available, even despite some other media outlets reporting in a similar way, and even in the context of a fast-paced newsroom.

[38]  We note TVNZ was not simply re-reporting supplied content in this broadcast; it created the introduction and selected the text and images to be used, putting particular emphasis on Trump’s edited quote.

[39]  Accordingly, we find the broadcast breached the accuracy standard in this respect. We consider the level of harm in misleading members of the public as to Trump’s response to the relevant question sufficient to warrant upholding these complaints.

Fairness

[40]  The concern under this standard is that the broadcast was unfair to Trump, and to viewers, due to the inaccuracies complained of. It was submitted the inaccuracies led to an unfairly negative portrayal of the President, making it seem like he did not care about uniting his country.

[41]  The purpose of the fairness standard is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes. It does not address ‘fairness’ to the audience, or whether issues/facts are ‘fairly’ or misleadingly conveyed, which are matters for the accuracy or balance standards.¹⁶

[42]  Having found the broadcast’s statement that the President responded, ‘I couldn’t care less,’ to a question about unifying the country was inaccurate, we considered whether this inaccurate portrayal of his comments was unfair, in breach of the standard.

[43]  A consideration of what is fair, and the threshold for finding unfairness to an individual or organisation, may take into account the following factors:¹⁷

• the nature of the content (eg news and current affairs, political content, factual, dramatic, comedic or satirical)
• the nature of the individual or organisation (eg whether the individual is a public figure or an ordinary member of the public; whether the individual or organisation is based in New Zealand or overseas)
• whether the programme would have left the audience with an unfairly negative impression of the individual or organisation
• whether any critical comments were aimed at the participant in their business or professional life, or their personal life
• the public significance of the broadcast and its value in terms of free speech.

[44]  The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard in relation to public figures and politicians like Trump is higher than for a layperson or someone unfamiliar with dealing with media. Politicians and public figures hold a position in society where robust questioning and scrutiny of their policy, roles, and behaviour is encouraged and expected. 

[45]  This case, however, concerns inaccurate portrayal of the President’s comments in a way that may have reflected unfairly negatively on him. We have previously found that misrepresenting an individual’s comments can contribute to a finding of unfairness in relation to that individual.¹⁸ 

[46]  While we acknowledge the inaccurate portrayal of the President’s comments reflected negatively on him, in the context we consider any potential unfairness or harm to the President was minor. Trump is a highly controversial figure who holds one of the most powerful offices in the world as President of the United States. There is a large and frequent volume of news reporting concerning the President, via a wide range of news outlets. In this context, the inaccuracy in this broadcast was unlikely to have a big impact on the President’s reputation from the perspective of a New Zealand audience. The harm alleged under this standard is, in our view, more appropriately addressed under the accuracy standard.

[47]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard. 

Balance

[48]  The complaints under the balance standard alleged TVNZ’s inaccurate portrayal of Trump’s comments in the broadcast indicated bias against him and was intended to ‘aggravate ill will or disdain towards Trump’. However, the balance standard is not directed at bias.¹⁹

[49]  The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion. The complainants’ concerns do not relate to the omission of viewpoints on a significant issue. They concern the biased portrayal of a factual matter: the President’s comments.

[50]  We consider the complainants’ concerns under this standard have more appropriately been dealt with under the accuracy standard. We note, responding to allegations of bias, the broadcaster has rejected the claim that its report was intentionally misleading, and advised that the statement in the broadcast which we have found was inaccurate was its interpretation of the President’s comments.

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd of an item on 1News on 13 September 2025 on TVNZ 1 breached Standard 6 (Accuracy) of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.

[51]  Having upheld one aspect of the complaints, the Authority may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 (the Act). We invited submissions on orders from the complainants and the broadcaster.

Submissions on provisional decision

[52]  The complainants felt the provisional decision was appropriate.

[53]  TVNZ accepted our conclusion and said the 1News team would use the decision as an opportunity to review its scripting process. However, it raised concerns that the provisional decision did not accurately or fairly represent TVNZ’s position and information it provided. Its key concern was that insufficient weight was given to its submission that other ‘respected media providers’ reported the President’s comments in a similar way. TVNZ considered the reporting was evidence of the availability of another interpretation: while the Authority may consider this interpretation to be ‘less available’, it was nevertheless available.

[54]  We have amended our decision to respond in more detail to TVNZ’s submission about other media outlets’ reporting of the President’s comments.

[55]  However, these changes do not alter our overall finding in relation to the material inaccuracy.

Submissions on orders

[56]  On the question of appropriate orders, the complainants submitted appropriate orders would include a broadcast statement correcting the error, including an apology. Jordan also submitted TVNZ should issue a written statement to various officials, and be ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to the Crown to reflect the seriousness of the breach.

[57]  TVNZ submitted publication of the decision would be sufficient to remedy the breach and provide guidance to other broadcasters, noting the likelihood of the decision being widely reported.

Authority’s decision on orders

[58]  In determining whether orders are warranted and the type of order to impose, we consider the following factors:²⁰

• the seriousness of the breach and the number of upheld aspects of the complaint(s)
• the degree of harm caused to any individual, section of society or the audience generally 
• the objectives of the upheld standard(s) 
• the attitude and actions of the broadcaster in relation to the complaint(s), for example, whether the broadcaster upheld the complaint(s) and/or took mitigating steps; or whether the broadcaster disputed the standards breach and/or aggravated the breach and any harm caused 
• whether the decision will sufficiently remedy the breach and give guidance to broadcasters, or whether something more is needed to achieve a meaningful remedy or to send a signal to broadcasters 
• past decisions and/or orders in similar cases. 

[59]  Drawing from our findings above, we consider the following factors are relevant in this case:

Aggravating factors

• The broadcaster has maintained its interpretation of the comments was reasonably available, which we disagree with.
• The broadcast, which misrepresented the nature of comments made by the President, carried the potential to seriously mislead the public about what the President said. In the current divided social and political climate, we consider further care is required in reporting on comments of this nature.
• To date there has been no public acknowledgement of the breach for TVNZ’s audience. Publication of our written decision alone is insufficient to serve this purpose.

Mitigating factors

• TVNZ has now accepted our decision and has advised the 1News team would use it as an opportunity to review its scripting processes.
• Only one aspect of the complaints under the accuracy standard was upheld. Other aspects raised under the accuracy standard by one complainant, and the complaints under the balance and fairness standards, were not upheld.
• While we have upheld six complaints against TVNZ (which provides New Zealand’s largest free-to-air offering)²¹ in the last three years in relation to a breach of the accuracy standard, no orders were made in relation to any of them, indicating the breaches were at the lower end of the scale.²² 

Broadcast statement – section 13(1)(a) 

[60]  Taking into account the above factors, we consider ordering a broadcast statement is the appropriate response to the harm arising in this case. A broadcast statement will publicly denounce the breach, censure the broadcaster and help rectify the harm caused in the same forum and for a similar audience, which would not necessarily be achieved by our decision and any resulting publicity alone.²³

[61]  Consistent with the Authority’s usual practice, the broadcaster will draft a statement summarising the upheld aspect of our decision, for approval by the Authority. The statement should be broadcast at a similar time and on the same day of the week (Saturday) as the original broadcast, to reach a similar audience. While we have the power to require a broadcast statement, which may include an apology, we do not have the power to order the broadcaster to apologise.

[62]  Responding to Jordan’s submission that TVNZ should send this statement to various officials, we do not have the power to order this. Section 13(1)(a) of the Act states we may make an order ‘directing the broadcaster to publish [...] a statement’. We may therefore direct the broadcaster to ‘publish’ the statement on their platform, but we are unable to direct them to send it to particular parties.

[63]  We consider a broadcast statement is sufficient in this case and make no order of costs to the Crown.

Orders

1.  Under section 13(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to broadcast a statement. The statement shall:

• be broadcast during the 6pm edition of 1News, on the same day of the week as the original broadcast (Saturday)
• be broadcast within one month of the date of this decision
• summarise the upheld aspects of the Authority’s decision
• be drafted by the broadcaster for approval by the Authority prior to being broadcast. 

The Authority draws the broadcaster’s attention to the requirement in section 13(3)(b) of the Act for the broadcaster to give notice to the Authority and the complainants of the manner in which the above order has been complied with.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
6 May 2026

Appendix

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

Arron

1  Arron’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 14 September 2025

2  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 13 October 2025

3  Arron’s referral to the Authority – 22 October 2025

4  TVNZ’s further comments – 21 November 2025

5  Arron’s further comments – 25 November 2025

More

6  More’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 13 September 2025

7  TVNZ’s response to complaint – 13 October 2025

8  More’s referral to the Authority – 15 October 2025

9  TVNZ’s further comments – 21 November 2025

10  More’s further comments – 26 November 2025

Jordan

11  Jordan’s formal complaint to TVNZ – 13 September 2025

12  TVNZ’s response to formal complaint – 13 October 2025

13  Jordan’s referral to the Authority – 11 November 2025

14  TVNZ’s further comments – 21 November 2025

15  Jordan’s further comments – 9 December 2025

16  TVNZ’s further comments – 19 December 2025

17  Jordan’s further comments – 1 February 2026

Submissions on provisional decision and orders

18  More’s submission – 28 February 2026

19  Arron’s submission – 6 March 2026

20  TVNZ’s submission – 13 March 2026

21  Jordan’s submission – 24 March 2026

22  Jordan’s further submission – 25 March 2026

¹ 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—see: Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd [2012] NZHC 131, [2012] NZAR 407 at [62]. In this case, however, we do not consider there is an argument the balance standard could reasonably be implied into the wording of the original complaint.
² Citing: (Opinion) Francine Pose “Trump should be reassuring the country at this time. Instead he is sowing fear” The Guardian (online ed, 15 September 2025); Richard Gilzene “Trump admits he ‘couldn’t care less’ about fixing caustic US political divide” Independent (online ed, 13 September 2025); Marco Margaritoff “‘I Couldn’t Care Less’: Trump Rejects Chance To Unify Country In Wake Of Kirk Death” HuffPost (online ed, 12 September 2025); Bailey Richards “Donald Trump Says He ‘Couldn’t Care Less’ About Mending Political Divide After Charlie Kirk’s Death” People (online ed, 13 September 2025); Yuvraj Tyagi “Did Trump Say ‘I Couldn’t Care Less’ About Unifying America After Charlie Kirk Shooting?” Times Now News (online ed, 13 September 2025)
³ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁸ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ In the context of falling trust in the news media, in 2025 the Broadcasting Standards Authority commissioned research to understand the public’s expectations regarding news content and to explore which factors are most likely to support increased trust in New Zealand’s news media. The research demonstrated that accuracy was (unsurprisingly) a significant factor in promoting greater trust in the news media. Audiences trust news outlets which report fact correctly and avoid distortion of facts. This involves expectations for rigorous fact-checking. See: Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho Trust in News Media (June 2025) at 4.
¹¹ We made similar findings regarding news item introductions in Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-002 at [30] and [31]; and Kirkland and Sky Television Network Ltd, Decision No. 2023-095 at [17]
¹² Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹³ Fox News “‘We have him’: Trump says suspected Charlie Kirk assassin is in custody” (13 September 2025) YouTube <youtube.com>
¹⁴ Fox News “’We have him’: Trump says suspected Charlie Kirk assassin is in custody” (13 September 2025) YouTube <youtube.com>
¹⁵ Guideline 6.3: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁶ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹⁷ Guideline 8.1: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
¹⁸ Three Complainants and Mediaworks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2017-100 at [27] and [28]; Forbes & Lee and UMA Broadcasting Ltd, Decision No. 2015-058 at [14]; Prager and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2020-033 at [27]-[29] – noting, however, these cases concerned local individuals where there was a much greater likelihood of harm to their dignity and reputation among a New Zealand audience.
¹⁹ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
²⁰ Guide to the BSA Complaints Process: Outcomes and Remedies <bsa.govt.nz>
²¹ 1News Reporters “TVNZ posts $4.9m earnings, reveals year’s most-watched shows” 1News (online ed, 29 August 2025)
²² Hickson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-044; Al-Jiab and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-041; Jervis & Robertson and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-103; Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-002; Kammler and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-038; and Jones and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-030
²³ See Clark and Sallee and APNA Television Ltd, Decision No. 2021-081 at [49]