Brereton & Riches and MediaWorks TV Ltd - 2019-097 (16 June 2020)
- Judge Bill Hastings (Chair)
- Paula Rose QSO
- Susie Staley MNZM
- Kay Brereton and Brendon Riches
BroadcasterMediaWorks TV Ltd
[This summary does not form part of the decision.]
The Authority has upheld two complaints that a segment on The Project, about an incident where charges against a man who allegedly shot at a drone were dropped, was in breach of the fairness and accuracy standards. The Authority found the segment was unfair to the man and would have misled audiences as it provided an inaccurate account of events through an interview with the drone’s pilot and additional comments from presenters. The drone pilot interviewee was allowed to put forward unchallenged his views on the man, and the broadcaster did not do enough to provide the man with an opportunity to respond to the comments. As the broadcast did not disclose any private information about the man, nor discuss a controversial issue of public importance, the privacy and balance standards were not upheld.
Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy
Not Upheld: Privacy, Balance
 In late 2018 an incident took place at a rural property in which a man allegedly shot at a drone which was flying near or over his property. The man was charged with intentional damage of a drone and discharging a firearm near a public place so as to endanger property. The charges were dismissed in August 2019 as they were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
 An episode of The Project discussed the incident, and featured an interview with the drone’s pilot. A news article reporting on the incident and identifying the man who fired the shots was referred to, with an image of the article’s headline shown. The interview was introduced as follows:
Today we learn the charges against him were dismissed and the owner of the destroyed drone says the judgment is ‘all wrong’. [The interviewee] is a drone pilot who was there when this incident occurred. We spoke to him earlier and I asked him why he also disagreed with the judgment.
 Throughout the interview, the following comments were made by the interviewee in relation to the incident:
- ‘I feel like shooting at people is probably illegal.’
- ‘…the shot happened with absolutely no understanding of who was piloting that drone. You don’t need permission to be over people’s property if you have the correct credentials…he had absolutely no idea about that information and decided to let off a firearm. Second to that…you should probably call the [Civil Aviation Authority] or the police, not actually shoot at people.’
- ‘We live in a country where shooting at people is probably not a good idea, and is looked down upon, and with the recent situations that have happened in this country regarding gun crime, I find it hard to believe anybody will side with this man.’
- ‘I’m nervous to be on here really because I know there’s a gunman at loose, that’s tried to shoot us.’
 After the interview, The Project presenters discussed the interview, including making the following comments:
- ’Surely one of the central things of having a gun license and being a gun owner is that you use it responsibly and thoughtfully and in necessary situations. This doesn’t really sound like any of those things.’ (Kanoa Lloyd)
- ‘…it’s not really about the drone, it’s about someone letting off a firearm, really, isn’t it?’ (Jeremy Corbett)
- ‘It’s a real “he said she said” we’ll find out who the goodie and the baddie is somehow, sometime, somewhere…it’s very black and white for me.’ (Patrick Gower)
- ‘What we didn’t have in the story was whereabouts the drone was in proximity to him when he was shot at, and it wasn’t up in the air, it was right by his head, so you can see – he says, he says.’ (Jaquie Brown)
 The episode was broadcast at 7pm on 27 September 2019 on Three. In considering this complaint, we viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and we read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.
 Kay Brereton and Brendon Riches both separately complained that the broadcast breached the fairness standard of the Free-To-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice1 for the following reasons:
- The audience would have been left with an ‘unduly negative impression’ of the man, particularly due to claims by the interviewee that ‘he was shot at, that there was a gunman on the loose and that he was concerned for his personal safety.’
- Presenters on the programme made comments ‘to the effect that it was irresponsible to use a firearm in the circumstances described’.
- The Stuff article featured in the programme made it possible for viewers to identify the man.
- The man was not informed of the broadcast, or given a chance to comment on or respond to the claims made by the interviewee.
- ‘It feels like after having the charges dismissed he has been subjected to one-sided trial by media.’
 Ms Brereton also raised the accuracy, balance and privacy standards in her complaint. She argued:
- The following points in the broadcast were inaccurate:
- There were references to the man ‘shooting at people’.
- A presenter stated that the ‘drone was by his head when shot at’ (‘if this were a fact the charges obviously would not have been dismissed.’)
- There were references to a drone being ‘shot down’ or ‘shot’ (‘the drone was not shot down but rather shot at’).
- There was a reference to a destroyed drone (the drone was not destroyed, and arguably not even damaged).
- The interviewee presented himself as a ‘responsible licensed drone pilot’ (‘he is not listed on the CAA site as a licensed operator’).
- The man was identifiable through the online news article which was shown in the item.
- Broadcasting inaccurate information and ‘the very offensive remarks’ was ‘highly offensive to an objective reasonable person in the position of the person affected’.
- This breach was ‘amplified’ when the presenter said ‘the drone was by [the interviewee’s] head when it was shot at.’
- The broadcast was ‘completely inaccurate’ and did ‘great damage’ to the man and his family’s reputation.
- The man’s family were also identifiable through the broadcast and would have been negatively impacted.
- The broadcaster did not ‘seek input from the other party in this story’.
- The story referred to ‘finding out who is the goody and who the baddy’ but the item had already caused ‘significant harm’ to the man and his family.
The broadcaster’s response
 MediaWorks did not uphold the complaints for the following reasons:
- The man ‘did not take part in the broadcast and was not named’, which limits the application of the fairness standard.
- The Project twice attempted to contact the man’s lawyer but the lawyer did not return the calls.
- The item stated that the charges were dismissed, so viewers ‘were aware that he had not been found guilty of any wrongdoing’.
- The item ‘conveyed the man’s claim that the drone was over his property when he discharged his firearm at it’.
- ‘[The interviewee’s] perspective was framed as his version of events, and his claims were tempered by the understanding that the charges against the shooter had been dismissed.’
- ‘[B]ecause [the interviewee’s] version of events was framed as his side of the story, the existence of an alternative perspective (that of the defendant) was implied’ and was given credibility ‘by the fact the charges were dismissed’.
- The interviewee confirmed that the drone was damaged; the distinction between ‘destroyed’ and ‘damaged’ is immaterial and ‘would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the item as a whole.’
- Regarding the location of the drone when shot, this was ‘expressly framed as [the interviewee’s] version of events’, given he was asked for his view.
- ‘There was no obvious reason for The Project to challenge [the interviewee] on this point’ although it was contextualised for viewers as being ‘what “he says”’ clarifying for viewers that this was one side of a disputed account.
- In the case, the judge ‘did not prefer the counterfactual’ and stated that he had ‘significant doubts’ about the truthfulness of the man’s version of events.
- The man was not named or shown in the broadcast. Nor were any of his family members.
- The man ‘may have been identifiable’ through other media reporting but ‘the potential for identification was limited.’
- The broadcast did not reveal private information about the man and there was no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the information in the broadcast.
- The item covered ‘a single, isolated incident and the related dispute’, which is not a controversial issue of public importance.
The relevant standards
 The fairness standard (Standard 11) states that broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in a programme. The purpose of this standard is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured or referred to in broadcasts.2
 The accuracy standard (Standard 9) states that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not mislead. The objective of this standard is to protect audiences from being significantly misinformed.3
 The privacy standard (Standard 10) reflects the importance our society places on privacy. It requires broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with the privacy of the individual. The standard aims to protect, where reasonable, people’s wishes not to have themselves or their affairs broadcast to the public. It seeks to protect their dignity, autonomy, mental wellbeing and reputation, and their ability to develop relationships, opinions and creativity away from the glare of publicity.4
 The balance standard (Standard 8) states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs and factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.
 Our starting point in determining complaints is the right to freedom of expression, including the broadcaster’s right to impart ideas and information and the public’s right to receive that information. Our task is to weigh the value of the programme with the alleged harm caused, which in this case is unfairness to the man responsible for shooting the gun, a breach of his privacy, the broadcast of misleading information and an unbalanced discussion of the incident.
 An important consideration when we carry out this balancing exercise is the level of public interest in the broadcast. Looking at the nature and value of the programme in this case, the overall purpose of the item appeared to be to engage in a discussion about different attitudes towards drones, through the lens of this particular incident. We accept there is a level of public interest in this topic, especially in regard to the discharge of firearms. However, the light-hearted treatment of the story did not carry ‘legitimate public interest’ as envisaged by the broadcasting standards (being a matter of concern to, or having the potential to affect, a significant section of the New Zealand population).5
 Accordingly, we considered that in this case the threshold for finding a breach of standards and upholding aspects of the complaint, thereby limiting freedom of expression, was reduced and that intervention by the Authority may be more readily justified.
 People referred to in broadcasts have the right to expect that broadcasters will deal with them justly and fairly, so that unwarranted harm is not caused to their reputation and dignity. A consideration of what is fair will depend on the nature of the programme, and context (such as the public interest in the broadcast) should also be considered.6
 Under the fairness standard, programme participants and contributors must be informed, before a broadcast, of the nature of the programme and their proposed contribution, except where justified in the public interest, or where their participation is minor in the context of the programme.7 In addition, if a person or organisation portrayed in a broadcast might be adversely affected, that person or organisation should usually be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, before the broadcast.8
 Both complainants submitted that the broadcast was unfair to the man who fired the shots. Overall, we found the programme did not treat the man fairly, as he would have been adversely affected by the broadcast and was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the claims made in the broadcast. We expand on these findings below.
 The broadcaster argued that the fairness standard did not apply with respect to this man, as he was not referred to in the broadcast. However, the fairness standard does not require an individual to be identified in the same way as the privacy standard does. It applies with respect to any individual ‘referred to’. Although the man was not named in the broadcast, he was clearly ‘referred to’ as the man who was responsible for firing the gun and who had faced the associated charges. In addition, a clear image was shown of a news article which did name the man, enabling interested viewers to easily establish his identity online. Therefore, we found that the broadcaster had an obligation under broadcasting standards to treat the man fairly.
 As the fairness standard applies, we then considered whether the man referred to in the broadcast might be adversely affected by it.
 We found that overall the broadcast negatively portrayed the man and the audience was likely to be left with an unduly negative impression of him (ie that he was a person who acted irresponsibly, put the drone operator at risk and may pose an ongoing threat). The broadcaster should reasonably have foreseen that he was likely to be adversely affected.
 While there were a few comments made by the presenters that could be seen as favourable to the man – for example, ‘He claimed he fired at the drone because it was flying over his property’; ‘There will be some who hear this story who will side with the person who shot the drone’; ‘It’s a real “he said, she said”’ – these were not sufficient to mitigate the negative impression created by the following elements:
- The interviewee was allowed to present his view that the judgment dismissing the charges was wrong and that he felt concerned for his safety – largely unchallenged and without the man’s perspective.
- The interviewee suggested the man was ‘a gunman on the loose’ and had been ‘shooting at people’.
- The presenters’ comments following the interview appeared to support the interviewee’s position and question the court judgment.
- The fact the charges were dismissed – although relied on by the broadcaster as signalling the existence of a credible alternative perspective of events – was undermined by the remainder of the item and the comments made.
 Our next consideration was whether the man was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, before the broadcast. What is ‘fair and reasonable’ will depend on the circumstances.9
 The Authority has previously held that where a broadcast has the potential to adversely affect an individual in a significant way, it is necessary in the interests of fairness to seek comment from the individual directly affected by the allegations, rather than someone else (eg their employer) stating:
There is something fundamentally unfair about a person being condemned in his or her absence and without even knowing that their reputation and conduct are at issue.10
 The broadcaster has not disputed that the man was not informed of the broadcast prior to it going to air, only saying that it twice attempted to contact the man’s lawyer, who did not respond to its calls. No attempt was made to contact the man directly despite the fact he was clearly identified in the online news article. Ms Brereton disputes that the broadcaster attempted to contact the man’s lawyer.
 The man’s participation in the broadcast was not minor and there is no suggestion that any public interest in the item outweighed his right to be informed about the broadcast. We found that the two unsuccessful attempts to contact the man’s lawyer (which is disputed by Ms Brereton) and making no attempt to contact the man directly, was not sufficient to discharge the broadcaster’s obligation to give him a fair opportunity to comment for the broadcast.
 Overall, we find that the potential harm to the man by way of unfair treatment outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.
 Therefore, we uphold both complaints under the fairness standard.
 The determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether reasonable efforts were made by the broadcaster to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.11
 The audience may be misinformed in two ways: by incorrect statements of fact within the programme; and/or by being misled by the programme as a whole. Being ‘misled’ is defined as being given ‘a wrong idea or impression of the facts.’12 Programmes may be misleading by omission.13 The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion, rather than statements of fact.14 The standard is only concerned with material inaccuracy.15
 Ms Brereton identified a number of points within the broadcast as being inaccurate (listed in paragraph  above). In our view the key issue was whether the overall impression created by the item – including both the interview and the presenters’ surrounding comments – was misleading.
The overall impression
 We have previously found that where an interviewee is given an unchallenged opportunity to present their version of events, and this version of events is supported by the programme presenters’ surrounding comments, it can create a misleading impression of those events.16
 In this case, the main issue was the suggestion that the man was ‘shooting at people’ and that the drone was next to the interviewee’s head when it was shot at.
 Although it could be argued these points were presented as the interviewee’s opinion and personal perspective and not captured by the accuracy standard,17 we consider whether or not the shots were directed ‘at a person’ or ‘next to [his] head’ to be matters of fact (ie matters that are verifiable or capable of being proven right or wrong).18 We also found it was misleading to present these views unchallenged and with no countering comment, having regard to the District Court’s (publicly available) judgment on the matter:
- The charges against the man were of ‘intentional damage of a drone’ and of ‘without reasonable excuse discharging a firearm, namely a shotgun, near a public place namely [road deleted] so as to endanger property’ (para 1).
- It is not contemplated in the judgment at all that the man shot ‘at people’ and this is not mentioned anywhere in the witnesses’ evidence, with the exception of one comment from the real estate agent, who said she heard the gunshot and then remarked, ‘Did you just … shoot at us?’ (para 22).
- Nowhere in the judge’s account of the interviewee’s evidence does he refer to the man shooting at people or to the drone being next to someone’s head.
- The interviewee’s evidence was that he got the drone going and it was at a height of about 10 metres directly above them. He did not suggest it was next to anyone’s head (para 18).
 While we recognise that The Project often features ‘human interest’ stories which are clearly framed as coming from a certain point of view, the way that the item was presented in this case (as the interviewee’s version of events) does not eliminate the need for accuracy.
 In addition, we do not consider the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the broadcast did not mislead viewers in this respect. The judgment was publicly available. The broadcaster was clearly aware of the online news article reporting the outcome of the case – which, like the judgment, made no mention of any shooting ‘at people’. The online news article focussed solely on the issue of ‘where the drone was’ in relation to property. Finally, as noted above, the broadcaster did not seek comment from the man to verify the version of events which was to be broadcast.
 Therefore, we uphold this aspect of Ms Brereton’s complaint under the accuracy standard.
The remaining points under accuracy
 Ms Brereton also submitted that references to a drone being ‘shot down’ or ‘shot’, the reference to a ‘destroyed’ drone and the interviewee being called a ‘responsible licensed drone pilot’ were in breach of the accuracy standard.
 It is also not suggested in the judgment that the drone was ‘shot down’ or ‘destroyed’. Nevertheless, we consider this secondary to the suggestion that the man was shooting at people, in terms of the broadcast’s potential to cause him harm. Given the strength of that impression, we found that the question of whether the drone was in fact destroyed or shot (as opposed to ‘shot at’) was not material to the item as a whole.19 Therefore, it did not result in any breach of the standard.
 On watching the broadcast, we could not find any references to the interviewee being ‘responsible’ or ‘licensed’. He made one remark, ‘You don’t need permission to be over people’s property if you have the correct credentials’.
 The interviewee was introduced as ‘a drone pilot’, with the caption on screen reading ‘drone enthusiast’. It is not inaccurate to describe him as a drone pilot, in the sense that he is a person who flies drones. Therefore, this point did not breach the standard.
 As the privacy standard applies only to identifiable individuals,20 the Authority must first determine whether the person whose privacy has allegedly been interfered with was identifiable in the broadcast. The test under the privacy standard is whether the individual was identifiable beyond family and close friends who would reasonably be expected to know about the matter dealt with in the broadcast.21
 In some circumstances, a combination of information inside the broadcast and other readily available information from outside the broadcast may enable identification (the notion of ‘jigsaw’ identification).22 In this case, although the man was not named in the broadcast, the clear image shown of the online news article headline enabled interested viewers to easily search and ascertain the man’s identity (given he was named within that article). We consider he was identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard, beyond those who already knew about his case.
 Ms Brereton has also raised this standard with regard to the man’s family. However, his family was not in any way referred to in the broadcast or otherwise identifiable as being connected with the incident so the privacy standard does not apply with respect to the man’s family.
 The next question is whether the broadcast disclosed private information about the man. We note that Ms Brereton’s concerns under the privacy standard are largely directed at the alleged inaccuracies in the item, and the impact of the item on the man and his family, rather than identifying any ‘private’ information she believes was disclosed. These concerns were more properly dealt with under the fairness and accuracy standards.
 In any event, a person will usually not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to matters of public record, such as matters that occur in open court.23 As the item was covering information from the judgment which was given in open court, with no name suppression granted to the man, we found that the broadcast did not disclose any private information about him or information about which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 Therefore, we do not uphold Ms Brereton’s complaint under the privacy standard.
 The purpose of the balance standard is to ensure that competing viewpoints about significant issues are presented to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.24 The standard only applies when a broadcast discusses a ‘controversial issue of public importance’. An issue of public importance is something that would have a significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public.25
 We consider that the criteria for triggering the balance standard were not met in this case, and the balance standard does not apply. While a discussion of the appropriate use of firearms or of using drones near or around private property may constitute a ‘controversial issue of public importance’, this broadcast was focussed on a specific incident. It did not purport to examine the broader issues of appropriate firearm or drone use.
 Therefore, we do not uphold Ms Brereton’s complaint under the balance standard.
For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast by MediaWorks TV Ltd of an item on The Project on 27 September 2019 breached Standard 10 (Fairness) and Standard 9 (Accuracy) of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.
 Having upheld part of the complaint, we may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We issued a provisional decision to the complainants and the broadcaster and invited submissions on orders.
The parties’ submissions
 Mr Riches and MediaWorks both declined to make submissions.
 In relation to the provisional decision, Ms Brereton noted that she disputes whether MediaWorks attempted to contact the man’s lawyer (see paragraphs ,  and ) and whether the drone was in fact damaged. We note Ms Brereton’s comments but this does not alter our findings overall.
 Ms Brereton’s submissions also included the following arguments regarding orders:
- A broadcast statement would not be suitable as it ‘would not rectify the damage…it would simply return public attention to the item.’
- An order of costs or ‘significant compensation’ would be suitable.
- ‘In my initial complaint I requested that the item be removed from Mediaworks online content; this did not occur.’
- The item portrayed the man ‘as a gunman on the loose to the viewing population, which is not just the people who viewed the item on the night of broadcast but also all the people able to access it on the online platform for the two weeks after broadcast.’
- Audiences would have formed a ‘negative opinion’ of the man referred to in the broadcast.
The Authority’s decision on orders
 When the Authority upholds a complaint, we may make orders, including directing the broadcaster to broadcast and/or publish a statement, and/or make a contribution to legal costs reasonably incurred by the complainant. Alternatively, we may determine that the publication of our decision is sufficient to sanction the conduct of the broadcaster and to provide guidance to the broadcaster which is the subject of the complaint, and to other broadcasters more generally.
 In determining whether orders are warranted and the type of order to impose, we consider the following factors:26
- the seriousness of the breach and the number of upheld aspects of the complaint
- the degree of harm caused to any individual, or the audience generally
- the objectives of the upheld standards
- the attitude and actions of the broadcaster in relation to the complaint, such as whether the broadcaster upheld the complaint in full or in part
- 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.
 In this case, we considered whether an order of costs to the Crown would be appropriate given:
- breaches of two standards out of four (accuracy and fairness) were upheld against MediaWorks
- MediaWorks’ failure to engage with the man in question (both to give him a fair opportunity to comment for the broadcast and to verify the version of events which was to be broadcast) was a basic error for an experienced broadcaster.
 However, ultimately we determined that the publication of the decision is sufficient to remedy the breach, censure the broadcaster, and provide guidance to this and other broadcasters for the future. In making our decision, the factors we considered most relevant to our assessment included the following:
- The harm in question was to the man referred to in the programme, who was treated unfairly, and to the audience who would have been misled by inaccuracies in the broadcast.
- The man’s reputation may have already been damaged through the accurate reporting of the incident in an online article which also identified him. However, there is a distinction to be made between the reporting of the incident (which may reflect negatively on him, but is not unfair) and allowing a version of events to air unqualified.
- In terms of consistency with past decisions, this decision is similar to ANZ Bank New Zealand and Television New Zealand Ltd27in which one party to an incident was allowed to put forward an unqualified version of events, resulting in harm to the complainant. In that case, we upheld the accuracy standard but ultimately made no orders.
- MediaWorks TV has not had any complaints upheld against it in the last twelve months. One complaint was upheld against it on 24 April 2019.28 Two complaints have been upheld against MediaWorks Radio in the last twelve months, with one resulting in a broadcast statement29 and one with no orders.30
- The video no longer appears to be available online, which minimises any harm that may have been caused.
 The decision will give guidance to broadcasters about the importance of ensuring accuracy and fairness when allowing one party to put forward their version of events, especially where the facts are disputed.
 Therefore, we make no further orders against the broadcaster to respond to the breach.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
Judge Bill Hastings
16 June 2020
The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:
1 Kay Brereton’s complaint to MediaWorks – 28 September 2019
2 MediaWorks’ response to Ms Brereton – 29 October 2019
3 Ms Brereton’s referral to the Authority – 6 November 2019
4 Ms Brereton’s email with supporting information – 11 November 2019
5 Brendon Riches’ complaint to MediaWorks – 9 October 2019
6 MediaWorks’ response to Mr Riches – 29 October 2019
7 Mr Riches’ referral to the Authority – 5 November 2019
8 MediaWorks’ confirmation of no further comment – 22 November 2019
9 Ms Brereton’s submissions on orders – 11 and 12 May 2020
10 Mr Riches’ confirmation of no submissions – 11 May 2020
11 MediaWorks’ confirmation of no submissions – 12 May 2020
1 The Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice was refreshed with effect from 1 May 2020. This complaint has been determined under the April 2016 version of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice as the relevant broadcast pre-dated the 1 May 2020 version.
2 Commentary: Fairness, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21
3 Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
4 Commentary: Privacy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 21.
5 Definitions: Public interest, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 9
6 Guideline 11a
7 Guideline 11b
8 Guideline 11d
9 Guideline 11d
10 HC and CT and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2010-163 at 
11 Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 19
12 Attorney General of Samoa v TVWorks Ltd, CIV-2011-485-1110
13 Commentary: Accuracy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 19
14 Guideline 9a
15 Guideline 9b
16 ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2019-070 at 
17 Guideline 9a
18 Guidance: Accuracy – Distinguishing Fact and Analysis, Comment or Opinion, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 62
19 Guideline 9b
20 Guideline 10a
21 Guidance: Privacy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 59
22 As above
23 Guidance: Privacy, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 59
24 Commentary: Balance, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 18
25 As above
26 Guide to the BSA Complaints Process for Television and Radio Programmes, Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook, page 58
27 Decision No. 2019-070
28 Evans and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2018-092
29 Horowhenua District Council and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2018-105
30 Brenner and MediaWorks Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2019-029