BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that presenters’ comments during a fundraising appeal promotion for Rhema Media’s Sanctuary Radio breached the accuracy standard. The presenters referred to the station as ‘listener funded’ which the complainant argued was misleading as Rhema Media also receives income from commercial businesses, charities and other sources. The broadcaster confirmed it is 85% listener funded, with listener support and contributions crucial to its identity and operations. The Authority found the term ‘listener funded’ in the context was part of brand messaging and audience engagement intended to rally support, rather than stating as fact the station is 100% listener funded. The Authority considered the risk of listeners being materially misled was low and did not justify restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression in the way it presented its fundraising promotion.

Not Upheld: Accuracy 

The broadcast

[1]  On 22 May 2025, Sanctuary Radio promoted the ‘Sanctuary Appeal’, a live on-air fundraising campaign to support Sanctuary, a Christian worship station run by Rhema Media. The Sanctuary Appeal encouraged listeners to phone in and donate or consider regular monthly donations. The segment included the following comments:

a)  ‘Join the Sanctuary Appeal. Call now…’.

b)  ‘'And so encouraging to see so many people have been… supporting Sanctuary Appeal, keeping your sanctuary funded, it is … listener supported’.

c)  ‘Look, if you’ve just tuned in now, the number is … and we’ve just kicked off our appeal - yes, being listener funded - and people getting on board, playing a crucial role in keeping Sanctuary on the air.’

d)  ‘And it’s great to have you listening in to New Zealand’s worship station. Listener funded, the number is …’.

e)  ‘…and Sanctuary being on the air, being a listener funded station. So, it’s one of those things that it’s very easy to take for granted, and I just see a phone line clearing now. So, we’ve still got these journals, $20 a month, $5 a week, is that you?’

f)  ‘Sanctuary is a place of worship, rest and truth. You can help share it by giving today at yoursanctuary.nz or calling …’.

The complaint

[2]  Darrin Elford complained the broadcast breached the accuracy standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand for the following reasons:

a)  The promotion advised the station is ‘listener funded’. ‘This is not completely true as Rhema Media also generate revenues from other commercial businesses, charities etc.’

b)  The promotion lacked ‘transparency’ and did not accurately reflect the full funding picture of the broadcaster. This is ‘dishonest by omission of pertinent facts’.

c)  The complainant had previously ‘raised the issue’ with Rhema Media in March 2025 and requested ‘the promotions reflect more honesty and transparency’.

d)  On referral to the Authority, Elford acknowledged most of Rhema Media’s revenue comes from listener donations, as shown in their financial statements, but insisted that ‘adding the word “partly” in front of “listener funded” would more accurately reflect the “truth”.’ ‘Most people do not bother to read or understand the complexities of financial statements.’

e)  ‘I do not have issue with them fund-raising, but I do have issues with their inaccurate statements about it … Rhema Media need to be held to a higher standard as required by the [Broadcasting] Act.’

The broadcaster’s response

[3]  Rhema Media Incorporated (Rhema) maintained the broadcast complied with all relevant standards and did not uphold the complaint, for the following reasons:

a)  The phrase ‘a listener supported radio station or TV channel’ accurately ‘reflect[s] and empower[s] our community of over 24,000 supporters. This language is a key part of how we acknowledge the vital role our audience plays in sustaining our ministry. Indeed, without these supporters we could not function’. ‘Listener supported’ means more than just money, it includes ‘prayer, advocacy, and encouragement’ and ‘[t]his broader understanding of “support” is a vital part of our identity’.

b)  ‘We regularly speak publicly about the fact that 85% of our support comes from donations’, including during the on-air appeals. Remaining income is from ‘advertising and other sources, which are also disclosed transparently’, audited annually and published for ‘public scrutiny’. Rhema provided a screenshot of its funding breakdown from its published annual report.

c)  ‘The promotion was clearly identified as a fundraising appeal and did not contain misleading or deceptive content. All statements made during the promotion were factual and supported by verifiable information.’ ‘Listeners were provided with clear information regarding the purpose of the fundraising, how the funds would be used, and the means by which they could contribute.’

d)  ‘We have operated under the same financial model for 45 years. We regularly review our promotional materials to ensure compliance with broadcasting standards and to uphold public trust.’

The standard

[4]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.¹ The standard states:²

• 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.

Our analysis

[5]  We have listened to the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[6]  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.³

[7]  We have not found actual or potential harm in this case to justify restricting the broadcaster’s exercise of their right of freedom of expression in the way it promoted its fundraising initiative. We explain our reasons below.

Jurisdiction – promotions

[8]  For a broadcaster to consider a formal complaint, and for the Authority to accept a complaint referral, it must relate to a ‘programme’.⁴ A ‘programme’ is defined under section 2(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 (the Act) as:

…sounds or visual images, or a combination of sounds and visual images, intended –

(i)  to inform, enlighten, or entertain; or

(ii)  to promote the interests of any person; or

(iii)  to promote any product or service…

[9]  The Authority’s functions, including to receive and determine complaints, do not apply to ‘advertising programmes’, defined as programmes primarily intended to promote the interest of any person, or any product or service for the commercial advantage of any person, for which payment is made (whether in money or otherwise).⁵ The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is the body to which complaints about advertising programmes may be made.

[10]  The Act excludes from ‘advertising programmes’ any programme that ‘promotes a scheduled programme on behalf of a broadcaster’ or ‘that promotes only a station identity on behalf of a broadcaster’.⁶ These types of promotions sit within our jurisdiction.

[11]  In the original complaint, Elford asked whether Rhema was ‘paid for this promotion [the Sanctuary Appeal] as it determines whether it fits with BSA or ASA’. Rhema said the promotions are not paid content: ‘These are fundraising campaigns to bring in vital support’ and garnering listener support in this way, both financially and otherwise, is crucial to its identity. The broadcaster also accepted Elford’s formal complaint and responded to his concerns under broadcasting standards, implicitly accepting this broadcast amounted to programme content for the purposes of the Act.

[12]  Considering these factors and the language of the Act, we consider we have jurisdiction to consider the segment complained about, noting:

• the promotion was not paid for
• it included typical radio programme content: pre-recorded brief promotional statements about the Sanctuary Appeal, and presenter comments and music
• its primary purpose was to encourage listener engagement and support, similar to a ‘station identity’ promo.

Accuracy

[13]  The accuracy standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual content. The segment was not news or current affairs. We therefore consider whether it is factual content to which the standard applies.

[14]  The segment was radio programme content that was promotional in nature, encouraging engagement with and support of the Sanctuary station.⁷ The promotional Sanctuary Appeal clips and discussion by the presenters were intended to rally support, rather than make a formal or detailed financial disclosure about the station’s operations or funding breakdown. In this context, the phrase ‘listener funded’ was more in the nature of a marketing or branding slogan,⁸ than ‘factual content’ or a ‘material point of fact’ as envisaged by the accuracy standard.⁹

[15]  Even if references to the station being ‘listener funded’ were factual content to which the accuracy standard applied, listeners were unlikely to be materially misled in the context of the Sanctuary Appeal. We think reasonable and regular listeners of Sanctuary would appreciate the phrase ‘listener funded’ was not stating unequivocally the station is ‘100% listener funded’ or that it excluded all other funding sources, especially in the context of a not-for-profit, faith-based station appealing to its supporter base. Rhema advised it has been operating under the same financial model for 45 years and its audited accounts and broader financial situation, which includes advertising, donations, and charitable gifts, are publicly available information.¹⁰

[16]  In these circumstances, we consider any risk listeners would be harmed or materially misled by this fundraising appeal in the manner alleged was low. Including qualifiers like ‘partly’ or ‘mainly’ listener funded, or making a distinction between ‘85% listener funded’ and ‘100% listener funded’, would not have significantly altered the overall impact of the Sanctuary Appeal promotion.

[17]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
29 July 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Elford’s original complaint – 22 May 2025

2  Rhema’s response to Elford’s complaint – 26 May 2025

3  Rhema’s formal decision on Elford’s complaint – 28 May 2025

4  Elford’s referral to the Authority – 28 May 2025

5  Rhema’s response to the referral (enclosing an earlier response to Elford’s feedback dated 27 March 2025) – 3 June 2025

6  Elford’s response to Rhema’s comments – 4 June 2025

7  Rhema confirmation of no further comments – 4 June 2025

8  Elford’s further comments – 17 June 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
² Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁴ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 6
⁵ Broadcasting Act 1989, ss 2(a)(i) and (ii)
⁶ Broadcasting Act 1989, s 2(1)(d)
⁷ For similar findings, see Smith and MediaWorks TV Ltd, Decision No. 2018-062; and Boswell and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2016-073
⁸ For a similar finding, see Findlay and NZME Radio Ltd, Decision No. 2020-038
⁹ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁰ Charities Services | Ngā Ratonga Kaupapa Atawhai “The Charities Register/Te Rēhita Kaupapa Atawhai” <register.charities.govt.nz>