BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard, regarding a 1News football match preview which included a montage of crowd shots. The complaint was about a crowd shot where a Palestinian flag was visible. The Authority has declined to determine the complaint on the grounds it concerned matters of personal preference and did not raise issues of potential harm which required the Authority’s intervention.

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast on Radio New Zealand National’s Nine to Noon marking one year since the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The broadcast included two interviews conducted by host Kathryn Ryan - one with BBC Middle East editor Sebastian Usher, and the other with Sally Stevenson, an emergency coordinator with Médecins Sans Frontières. The Authority found listeners were alerted to alternative significant viewpoints during Usher’s interview, and Stevenson’s interview was clearly signalled as being from Stevenson’s perspective. Additionally, the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage and, while noting the balance standard is not directed at bias, no material which indicated bias against Israel was identified. The Authority also found it was not inaccurate to state 7 October 2024 marked ‘a year since the beginning of Israel’s retaliation’ and, noting the other media coverage of the conflict, the likelihood of a listener being misled by omission of any of the identified perspectives and context, was significantly reduced. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Seven Sharp segment breached the offensive and disturbing content standard. The complainant alleged co-host Jeremy Wells held a cucumber in a way that could be ‘likened to a man holding an erect penis’. The Authority found any innuendo in Wells’s behaviour was low-level and would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed regular Seven Sharp viewers, noting the segment’s light-hearted tone. The Authority noted adult supervision is expected during news and current affairs programmes and such content did not require an audience advisory.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast on Radio New Zealand National’s Saturday Morning breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards. The broadcast was an interview of a UNICEF spokesperson and humanitarian worker about her experience living and working in Lebanon amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas-Hezbollah conflict. The Authority found the broadcast was clearly signalled as being from the interviewee’s perspective and was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The audience also could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage. Regarding accuracy, the Authority found the likelihood of a listener being misled by omission of any of the identified perspectives and context was significantly reduced, noting other media coverage of the conflict. The Authority also found not referring to Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organisations was not inaccurate, nor material in the context. If the death toll figures from Gaza’s Health Ministry were incorrect, it was not material in the context of the broadcast, and it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on such figures. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint under various standards about an answer during the DUKE Quiz which, in identifying an astronaut who ‘did not set foot on the moon’, stated ‘but then, did anyone really land on the moon?’. The Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination.

Declined to Determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Accuracy

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under multiple standards, regarding two news items broadcast on Labour Day 2024: one about a protest against a proposed sewerage project and the other about commemoration of New Zealand’s Land Wars. Noting the complaint was not about content in the broadcasts but content the complainant wished to see included, the Authority found it related to editorial discretion and personal preference, which is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.  

Declined to Determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all circumstances): Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness

The Authority has upheld two complaints from Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH) about two items on ThreeNews reporting concerns about ASH, including alleged conflicts of interest and its stance on vaping. The Authority agreed the first item (26 July 2024), presented as a ‘special investigation’ into concerns about alleged links between ASH and the ‘pro-vaping’ lobby in Australia, breached the fairness, balance and accuracy standards: the reporter did not fairly inform ASH about the nature of the story or ASH’s contribution to it; ASH’s comments on the issues were not fairly presented, meaning the item was unbalanced; and, collectively, a number of statements and the presentation of ASH’s position created a misleading and unfairly negative impression of ASH. The Authority also found the second item (30 July 2024), reporting a school had ‘refused to allow’ its students to take part in ASH’s annual Year 10 Vaping Survey due to concerns about ASH’s stance on youth vaping, was misleading and unfair to ASH and its Director: the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, by failing to report important factual context which would have significantly altered viewers’ understanding of the item; and the single comment that was included from ASH failed to respond to the issues and unfairly portrayed ASH in a negative light.

ThreeNews, 26 July 2024 – Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Accuracy.

ThreeNews, 30 July 2024 – Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness.

Orders: Section 13(1)(a) - statement published on air, and online (to the extent reasonably within the broadcaster’s control); Section 16(1) - costs to the complainant $1,710.62; Section 16(4) - $3,000 costs to the Crown 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News item breached the accuracy standard by claiming a 24-hour period in October 2024 was Dunedin’s ‘wettest day in a century’. In the context of an almost 10-minute-long live broadcast reporting on a regional state of emergency, the comments did not amount to material points of fact. Their inclusion would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the overall item, as its purpose was to provide information to New Zealanders during a natural disaster. Furthermore, live reporting on extreme weather events carries high public interest, and this broadcast did not create harm at a level justifying restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a ThreeNews item breached the accuracy standard by claiming a 24-hour period in October 2024 was Dunedin’s ‘wettest day in a century’. In the context of an 11-minute live broadcast reporting on a regional state of emergency, the comments did not amount to material points of fact. Their inclusion would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the overall item, as its purpose was to provide information to New Zealanders following a natural disaster. Further, live reporting on extreme weather events carries high public interest, and this broadcast did not create harm at a level justifying restriction of the broadcaster’s freedom of expression.

Not Upheld: Accuracy

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News report breached the accuracy standard through its story about the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s findings concerning a fatal shooting. The complainant considered the story misleading for its emphasis on the shooting being ‘unjustified’ without further context, including regarding the ‘fine margin’ of the decision. When considered as a whole, the Authority found a reasonable viewer was unlikely to come away from the broadcast with a wrong idea or impression of the facts.

Not Upheld: Accuracy