BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

All BSA's decisions on complaints 1990-present

BSA Decisions
Peace Movement Aotearoa and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2026-025 (26 August 2026)

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint a promo on RNZ National for coverage of the 2026 ANZAC Day national commemoration, breached broadcasting standards. The complainant considered the statement ‘ANZAC commemorations bring together all Kiwis, as we stand as one to honour our service personnel,’ was inaccurate and unbalanced, as there are many New Zealanders who do not support or commemorate ANZAC Day for a range of reasons. The Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination, noting the arguments raised did not identify any potential harm at a level requiring intervention.

Declined to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Balance, Accuracy

Harrington and MediaWorks Radio Ltd - 2026-015 (26 August 2026)

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that ‘inappropriate and potentially racist’ comments made in reference to white people during a Mai Morning Crew broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, and discrimination and denigration standards. The comments, while potentially offensive to some, did not reach the high threshold required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The broadcast did not encourage the different treatment of white people nor devalue their reputation. While the Authority considered the complaint was best dealt with under the discrimination and denigration standard rather than the offensive and disturbing content standard, it noted the broadcast was unlikely to seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb or offend the audience in the context.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration

Henderson and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2026-023 (26 August 2026)

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on Morning Report about the just-released annual Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and the opportunity presented by the fuel crisis to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, was inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast, by relying on reputable experts in the field of climate science, and the findings of the Greenhouse Gas Inventory as an official and recognised report. It found the balance standard was not breached, noting the introduction made it clear the item was focused on the perspectives of climate scientists interviewed. In this context, the audience would not have expected alternative viewpoints to be presented or been left otherwise misinformed.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

Frewen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2026-029 (26 August 2026)

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast reporting the Government’s announced plan to ‘axe’ the Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho (BSA). The complainant said it was inaccurate to say the BSA had been ‘axed’ as it has not, and may never, happen. Noting the nature of the broadcast and conflict presented by determining issues associated with itself, the Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined.

Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Accuracy

Agrawal and MediaWorks Radio Ltd - 2026-028 (26 August 2026)

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment of Mai Home Run, discussing Japan’s population crisis, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The hosts commented on how Japan could ‘get tips from India’ as the world’s most populous country. The complainant considered the segment denigrated Indian people. Within the context of the broadcast, the Authority found the comments were unlikely to encourage the different treatment, or devalue the reputation, of Indian people.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration 

Jacobson and NZME Radio Ltd - 2026-019 (11 August 2026)

A majority of the Authority has upheld a complaint that a message read out during Easter Monday Afternoon with Francesca on Newstalk ZB breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The host had invited discussion on US President Donald Trump’s threats of escalation as part of the US-Iran conflict. The message read: ‘Israel is running the show and 80% of advisers around Trump are Jews. A Jew gifted $250 million to Trump personally at his electioneering time and he took it happily. Rubio is heavily linked to the Jewish community and society.’ The majority noted the broadcaster’s ability to exercise editorial control, community expectations around discriminatory content and the real and serious harms that can result from antisemitic tropes. It found the message clearly evoked negative tropes about Jewish people, and reading it out with no challenge served to embed these negative stereotypes. A minority of the Authority found any potential harm from the comment did not reach the high threshold required to justify regulatory intervention. In the context, the minority found it was unlikely to carry influence or authority of a nature likely to promote the antisemitic trope among listeners.

Upheld By Majority: Discrimination and Denigration

WK and The Platform Media NZ Ltd - 2025-063A-B (11 August 2026)

Following its interlocutory decision finding it has jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act 1989 to consider a complaint about The Platform’s Live Talkback,1 the Broadcasting Standards Authority has determined two complaints about online broadcasts by The Platform on 22 July 2025 and 15 October 2025 – both of which have been upheld.

22 July 2025 broadcast: Upheld – s 4(1)(a) good taste and decency

15 October 2025 broadcast: Upheld – s 4(1)(b) law and order; s 4(1)(c) privacy 

No Order 
 

Cheung and Mediaworks Radio Ltd - 2026-013 (29 July 2026)

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging a broadcast of the song ‘The Next Episode’ by Dr Dre (featuring Snoop Dogg and Nate Dogg) contained swearing – specifically, the ‘f word’. Since the edited version of the song broadcast did not contain the alleged language, the Authority considered, in all the circumstances, the complaint should not be determined.

Declined to Determine (s 11(b), Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content

Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2026-010 (29 July 2026)

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News item about an Auckland ‘March Against Antisemitism’ rally, held in the wake of the Bondi Beach Hanukkah Festival shooting, was unbalanced and inaccurate. The complaint was that the broadcaster failed to appropriately challenge rally participants on multiple points, resulting in omission of context and perspectives and the audience being misled, including by mischaracterisation of the rally and the suggestion Hamas was connected to the Bondi Beach shooting. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply because the broadcast, which focused on the concerns of the New Zealand Jewish community and commemoration of the Bondi Beach victims, was a report on events rather than a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance. In the context, it noted viewers would not have expected the broadcaster to challenge the rally participants or present the other perspectives outlined in the complaint. The Authority also found the inaccuracies raised either would not have materially misled viewers or concerned matters of opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

Zhang and NZME Radio Ltd - 2026-021 (29 July 2026)

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard about a Mike Hosking Breakfast segment discussing the ‘demise’ of footwear company Allbirds. Hosking, referring to the problem of ‘dupes’, said ‘the Chinese will steal it from you, and they will make it for less’. The Authority accepted some listeners would find the comments offensive but, in context, found they were likely to be seen as referring to the business practices of some companies rather than Chinese people. The comments did not carry the invective or malice at a level that amounts to encouraging the denigration of, or discrimination against, Chinese people.

Not upheld: Discrimination and Denigration