BSA Decisions Ngā whakatau a Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

All BSA's decisions on complaints 1990-present

BSA Decisions
Beekhuis and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2026-031 (30 September 2026)

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under the offensive and disturbing content standard, about a PG-rated Hyundai Country Calendar episode where a farmer said ‘shit’ twice. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint.

Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Offensive and Disturbing Content

Engelbrecht and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2026-022 (30 September 2026)

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News report about the breakdown of peace negotiations between Iran and the United States breached the balance and accuracy standards. The complaint alleged the broadcast’s reference to Israel’s attacks on Lebanon did not contextualise Israel’s actions, thereby omitting Israel’s perspective and giving the misleading impression its attacks were gratuitous. The Authority did not uphold the balance complaint, noting the broadcast was not a discussion of the Hezbollah and Israel conflict – which was mentioned in passing. Viewers would not have expected to receive further context on that conflict in such a report. The omitted contextual information also did not render the item materially misleading.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy

Lancaster & New Zealand Jewish Council and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2026-020 (30 September 2026)

The Authority1 has not upheld two complaints under the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards about a Saturday Morning interview with the Head of Programs for Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) discussing humanitarian crises in Lebanon and Gaza. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard because: the broadcast was focussed on the humanitarian effects of the conflicts; it was clearly signalled as being from MSF’s perspective; the audience also could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints (on the relevant issue and conflicts more generally) from other media coverage; and the broadcast was not required to present allegations surrounding MSF’s neutrality. 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 the broadcast’s narrow focus and other media coverage of the conflict. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

Taikato and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2026-017 (9 September 2026)

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief 1News update on the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States breached the balance standard. The Authority has consistently recognised the brevity of such broadcasts, providing updates on recent events, means they typically do not constitute a ‘discussion’ of issues for the purposes of the balance standard. Even if the balance standard did apply, it would not have been breached as the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other reporting, and the item did not purport to be an in-depth analysis of the conflict or the issues raised by the complainant.

Not Upheld: Balance

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