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 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

The broadcast

[1]  An item in the 12 April 2026 broadcast of 1News reported the United States (US) had withdrawn from peace talks with Iran. A teaser for the story said, ‘No deal: America walks away from historic talks with Iran as sticking points prove too much for peace,’ and the main item opened with the following introduction from the 1News presenter:

The US delegation has now left high-stakes peace talks aimed at finding an end to the conflict in Iran. Footage released that had the sound removed shows Pakistan’s prime minister separately greeting US Vice President JD Vance and the speaker of Iran’s parliament. All three parties met at once, several rounds of trilateral talks running deep into the night. There were serious hurdles to overcome. For example, Iran has reportedly pushed back on suggestions there should be joint control of the Strait of Hormuz. Also a sticking point, whether the ceasefire agreement should have already halted Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which has so far killed around 2,000 people. 

[2]  The broadcast then crossed live to an Associated Press (AP) correspondent in Islamabad for further analysis. The 1News presenter first asked about JD Vance’s ‘short statement to media’, to which the AP correspondent said:

Yeah, very short statement indeed. Just three minutes we heard from JD Vance. He essentially says this: that the United States wanted a commitment from Iran not to seek a nuclear weapon. You’ve heard this quite a few times before in the past, over the last few decades. It has been a US demand for a long time. And that is something, according to the US side at least, that the Iranians were not willing to agree to. And that is why we’re stuck with essentially a failure in these talks, because they have not led to a peace agreement. But there might still be some things to work on. We don’t know at this point what the reaction of US President Donald Trump is going to be. He is now, again, after 21 hours of diplomacy here in Islamabad through JD Vance and the Iranian delegation, he’s now the one who decides where this war goes from here. Will there be further threats toward Iran, further ultimatums, and will this ceasefire last? We are now in the middle of a two-week long ceasefire. We’ll have to wait and see what the United States decides to do next now that these talks are officially over. 

[3]  The 1News presenter then asked what, if anything, Iran had said about how negotiations with the US ended. The AP correspondent responded:

Well, they’ve also now left Islamabad. For them as well, this was a failure – of course, despite the fact that they were able to have face-to-face meetings for the first time in decades with the United States. That already was historic, what we saw here in Islamabad. The Iranians, though, saying that there were some sticking points when it came to the details. They say that the United States’ demands simply went too far, that they were excessive. So, it’s likely we’ll find out over the next few hours, maybe the next few days, where there was actually agreement between the two sides. We haven’t heard about that yet. Was there some rapprochement between the two sides on how the Strait of Hormuz might be reopened again? Remember, the Iranians want full control of it. The United States wants Iran to reopen it again to international traffic and for the oil market essentially to get going again. There might have been other agreements here but that led to, in the end, a failure in these talks because there was no peace agreement. But it must be said that that would have been a very optimistic ask in the first place, after so many decades of these two countries not finding any common ground, after six weeks of war in Iran, of US-Israeli attacks on Iran, and now a very, very tenuous ceasefire that for now remains in place. 

[4]  The item ended with a brief comment from Iran’s ambassador to New Zealand alleging the New Zealand Government’s ‘quietness’ on condemning attacks on Iran amounts to ‘support’, despite such attacks being ‘contrary to all international regulations’ – and a statement from New Zealand’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs denying the country ‘doesn't stand up for international law’.

The complaint

[5]  Eric Engelbrecht complained the broadcast ‘condemned’ Israel’s attacks on Lebanon without referencing Hezbollah’s ‘continual attacks on civilians in Israel’ or the ‘proposed talks between the elected Lebanese government and Israel’, giving the impression Israel’s attacks were ‘one-sided’. These omissions amounted to a breach of the balance and accuracy standards.

[6]  When referring the complaint to the Authority, the complainant added the broadcast did not identify:

a)  ‘Hezbollah attacks on Northern Israel as the reason for Israeli attacks on Southern Lebanon’

b)  how many of the 2,000 casualties in Lebanon were ‘in actual fact Hezbollah terrorists’

c)  the number of Israeli casualties in the Hezbollah-Israel conflict.

[7]  The complainant said these omissions gave the impression Israel ‘aggressively attacked Lebanon without cause’, contributing to the narrative that Israel attacks indiscriminately and arbitrarily – as well as fuelling ‘[antisemitic] hatred that is rampant today’. 

[8]  Additionally:

a)  An ‘anti-Israel’ bias was demonstrated by the decision to mention the number of casualties in Lebanon – which were not referred to in the Iranian statement on why its talks with the US failed. This could further inflame ‘Jew hatred’ and was inaccurate as it ‘attributed a statement to the Iranians which was not stated by them’.

b)  The broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ), ‘failed to provide the required balanced statements’ in the relevant broadcast. It instead stated, ‘1News has frequently reported on Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, and Israel’s bombing of Lebanon,’ and pointed to five articles as justification. However, these were published after the 12 April 2026 item (15–26 April 2026) ‘and are therefore without any relevance to the broadcast in question’.

c)  TVNZ has ‘continually portrayed an anti-Israel bias in their reporting’.

[9]  Overall, the complainant identified the ‘essence’ of the complaint as ‘a continuous blatant and subtle news feed that attacks Israel without any balance, either in length of rebuttal or in fact checking with the Israeli or American authorities’.

The broadcaster’s response

[10]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

a)  The Iran conflict and ‘discussion about a ceasefire’ is a controversial issue of public importance, and the broadcast in question ‘focused on the peace talks between the US and Iran ending’.

b)  The broadcast included significant viewpoints from the US and Iran, the ‘main viewpoints relevant to the issue’, and ‘analysis was provided by the AP Reporter’. Also, ‘[s]ubsequent comment was included from the Iranian Ambassador to New Zealand and the New Zealand government on New Zealand’s reaction to the war’.

c)  ‘It is an established principle of this standard that balance cannot be measured by a stopwatch; it is sufficient that significant viewpoints are adequately represented.’ TVNZ considered significant viewpoints were presented in the 1News item.

d)  Significant viewpoints are also available on the relevant issue ‘and the conflict in broader terms’ from other reporting. ‘The peace talks between the US and Iran are ongoing and reporting on this is also ongoing and widespread.’

Accuracy

e)  ‘The 1News story did not discuss Israel’s bombing of Lebanon or Hezbollah’s actions in any detail. The only reference was a brief summary of Iran’s concerns in the peace talks.’

f)  It is correct that 2,000 people have been killed in Lebanon so far. The United Nations has said, ‘According to the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, more than 2,700 people have been killed and over 8,300 have been injured since 2 March. As strikes continue, particularly in southern Lebanon, the toll is rising daily.’¹

g)  ‘1News has frequently reported on Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, and Israel’s bombing of Lebanon,’ including on 1News at 6pm on 2 March, 5 March, 7 March, and 9 April 2026.² This information was not required in a broadcast ‘focussed on peace talks between the US and Iran for viewers to properly understand the issues being discussed’.

[11]  In response to the complaint referral, TVNZ said Israel’s attacks on Lebanon ‘remain a sticking point for Iran in the peace talks’, as explained in an article by TIME.³ Also, the balance standard’s requirements ‘can be achieved in the period of current interest – which the 1News stories mentioned in the decision are’.

The standards

[12]  The purpose of the balance standard (standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁴ The standard states:⁵

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[13]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁶ The standard states:⁷

• 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

[14]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[15]  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.⁸

Balance

[16]  There are two steps in the assessment of whether a broadcast breached the balance standard:

a)  whether the standard applies — ie whether a news, current affairs or factual programme ‘discussed’ a ‘controversial’ issue ‘of public importance’

b)  whether the broadcaster sufficiently presented significant viewpoints in the circumstances.⁹

[17]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have a ‘significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public’.¹⁰ A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.¹¹

[18]  The item discussed the breakdown of peace negotiations between the US and Iran, a topic we consider constitutes a controversial issue of public importance. However, the complainant has not alleged significant viewpoints were omitted from the broadcast’s discussion of this issue. The complaint concerns the omission of balancing perspectives on the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel. We do not consider the item can reasonably be said to have ‘discussed’ this conflict, nor conflict in the Middle East more broadly.

[19]  Conflict in Lebanon was mentioned once as a passing example of one of the ‘serious hurdles’ or ‘sticking point[s]’ in US–Iran peace negotiations. It served to provide context for the parties’ differences and, in turn, the complexity of these negotiations. Viewers would not have expected to receive further context on the Lebanon conflict in an item of this nature.

[20]  We are therefore satisfied the points raised by the complainant did not result in a breach of the balance standard.

[21]  Addressing the remaining balance-related issues raised by the complainant, we note:

• The balance standard stipulates that balance can be achieved ‘within the period of current interest’.¹² The standard is designed to provide protection where balancing viewpoints on controversial issues have not been available across time, different programmes or different media.¹³ So long as other reporting on the relevant issue occurs within the ‘period of current interest’, it is immaterial whether such coverage took place before or after the broadcast in question aired. In this case, the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has been the subject of considerable prior media reporting and viewers are likely to have some understanding of each side’s positions.¹⁴
• We identified no material in the broadcast which indicated bias against Israel. However, given the many available media sources from which today’s audiences can obtain their news and information, the balance standard does not require programming to be presented without bias. Its focus is on ensuring competing viewpoints about significant issues are available (including in other media) so audiences can arrive at informed opinions.¹⁵
• The Authority’s jurisdiction is programme-specific, meaning we cannot consider complaints about programming over time.¹⁶

Accuracy

[22]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was materially inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[23]  The complainant alleged several omissions in the broadcast had the cumulative effect of implying Israel ‘aggressively attacked Lebanon without cause’, thereby contributing to a misleading perspective on the Hezbollah-Israel conflict. The alleged omissions included:

• Israel’s reasons for attacking Lebanon – ie ‘Hezbollah attacks on Northern Israel’
• Hezbollah’s ‘continual attacks on civilians in Israel’
• proposed negotiations between the governments of Lebanon and Israel
• how many of the reported 2,000 casualties in Lebanon were Hezbollah operatives
• the number of Israeli casualties in the Hezbollah-Israel conflict.

[24]  We disagree the likely inference from these omissions was that there was ‘no cause’ for Israel’s attacks. The item’s brief reference to the attacks and casualty numbers was simply silent on the background or rationale for the attacks. As noted at paragraph [21], the conflict in Lebanon has also been widely reported across other national and international media. This significantly reduced the likelihood of a listener being misled by this single item, taken in isolation.¹⁷

[25]  To the extent there was any possibility for confusion, we note the accuracy standard is not concerned with points unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole.¹⁸ The item centred on the breakdown of negotiations between the US and Iran, where Israel’s attacks in Lebanon were referenced once in passing. The lack of further information about Israel’s motivations, or the Hezbollah-Israel conflict more generally, would therefore not significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the overall broadcast.

[26]  The complainant also alleged TVNZ inaccurately attributed a statement to Iran, as the ‘Iranian statement on why the talks failed did not refer to casualties in Lebanon’. Under section 8(1B) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority is only able to consider issues raised in the original complaint to the broadcaster. This inaccurate attribution argument was not raised in the original complaint. In any event, we disagree that casualty figures in the relevant part of the broadcast were likely to be interpreted as coming from Iran (emphasis added):

There were serious hurdles to overcome [in the US-Iran peace talks]. For example, Iran has reportedly pushed back on suggestions there should be joint control of the Strait of Hormuz. Also a sticking point, whether the ceasefire agreement should have already halted Israeli attacks on Lebanon, which has so far killed around 2,000 people.

[27]  We therefore find no breach of the accuracy standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
30 September 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Engelbrecht’s original complaint – 12 April 2026

2  TVNZ’s decision – 8 May 2026

3  Engelbrecht’s referral to the Authority – 11 May 2026

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 19 June 2026

5  Engelbrecht’s further comments – 30 June 2026

6  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 27 July 2026

¹ “Today’s top news: Lebanon, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Chad, Ukraine” United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (online ed, 6 May 2026)
² TVNZ also cited five online articles published on 1News’ website. The links to each article have since expired but on request from the Authority, TVNZ provided links to two corresponding Associated Press (AP) articles: Abby Sewell “The truce in Lebanon is key to ending the wider Iran war, but challenges remain” AP (online ed, 18 April 2026); and Sam Metz “Trump claims progress in Mideast wars, but grievances could reignite them” AP (online ed, 26 April 2026); and transcripts of the remaining three 1News online articles.
³ Richard Hall, Nik Popli and Connor Greene “Trump and Iranian Official Sign Agreement to Stop Fighting, Reopen Strait of Hormuz” TIME (online ed, 15 June 2026)
⁴ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁵ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁶ Commentary: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁷ Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁰ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹¹ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹² Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹³ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁴ See, for example: Jon Gambrell, Elena Becatoros, and Mike Cordor “Netanyahu authorizes direct talks with Lebanon in potential boost to ceasefire efforts” Stuff (online ed, 10 April 2026); Tom McArthur “Israel and Lebanon agree 10-day ceasefire, Trump says” BBC (online ed, 16 April 2026); “Netanyahu orders strikes on Hezbollah after Israel alleges truce violations” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 26 April 2026); and William Christou “Hezbollah drone strikes target Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon” The Guardian (online ed, 28 April 2026)
¹⁵ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁶ Broadcasting Act 1989, ss 6(1)(a) and 21(1)(a)
¹⁷ For a similar finding see Grinwis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-090 at [17]
¹⁸ Guideline 6.2: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15