BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

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

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item about future upgrades to Wellington Airport infrastructure, including new runway technology designed to allow larger planes to land in the capital. The complainant said the item lacked balance and accuracy as the story was illustrated with some footage of windy conditions in Wellington, instead of showing Wellington on calm and windy days. As this complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, it 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 (section 11(b) Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances):  Balance, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  On 23 November 2024 1News ran a two-minute story about improvements to Wellington Airport which will allow larger long-haul planes to land and therefore increase international tourism numbers.

[2]  The story featured several interviews with airport, council and aviation experts who discussed the advantages of the planned improvements.

[3]  One of the interviews, lasting four seconds, took place on the Wellington waterfront. During the interview, the interviewee's hair was tousled by the wind. Additionally, there was a two-second shot of people on the Wellington waterfront in apparently windy conditions, as well as a nine-second piece-to-camera filmed against the backdrop of Wellington Airport, where the presenter’s hair was ruffled by the wind.

[4]  Several shots of planes landing and taking off from the airport were featured, including a two-second clip showing a plane apparently affected by a gust of wind.

[5]  The broadcast did not mention Wellington’s weather at any stage.

The complaint

[6]  The complainant said the broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand on the basis:

• footage showing the ‘extreme windiness’ was part of the item, [and] clearly shows this was intended as ‘pertinent to the story’
• there was an ‘absence of balance in [not] showing more typical weather conditions by using file footage of calmer weather’
• ‘the use of selective footage and the reporting style is misleading and misinforming the public‘
• ‘one of the item's main points was tourism [so] it needed to show what the weather in Wellington is more often like on a daily basis’
• ‘equal imagery or comment on the broader [weather] conditions would provide balance’
• ‘Wellingtonians don't have a problem in acknowledging it can get windy…the key thing is that it can get very windy, not is very windy in general’
• ‘There's something awry with journalism if the public aren't aware there usually isn't a strong wind in Wellington - it's the perception not the fact.’

[7]  The complainant provided detailed data to support his comments regarding the nature of Wellington’s wind.

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• The item did not discuss Wellington’s weather or wind, therefore the balance standard did not apply.
• Footage of people in windy conditions did not mislead the audience as Wellington does get very windy.¹ It is not misleading to depict windy conditions, especially when they happened to be the conditions on the day of filming, therefore the accuracy standard was not breached.

Outcome: Declined to Determine

[9]  Section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises the Authority to decline to determine a complaint if it considers that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.

[10]  In this case, the Authority considers it appropriate to exercise its s 11(b) discretion on the following grounds:

a)  The item was not about Wellington weather and the mere depiction of windy conditions does not make those conditions ‘pertinent to the story’.
b)  The complaint relates to a matter of broadcaster editorial discretion, the choice of conditions in which to film and selection of background file footage. Such a complaint is not, in general, capable of being resolved by a complaints procedure because it relates to the exercise of a discretion.²

For the above reasons the Authority declines to determine the complaint under s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
29 April 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Maggs’s original complaint – 1 December 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision – 16 January 2025

3  Maggs’s referral to the Authority – 12 February 2025

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 18 February 2025

5  Maggs’s further comments – 4 March 2025

¹ Stats NZ Tatauranga Aotearoa “Extreme Wind” <stats.govt.nz>
² Broadcasting Act 1989, s 5(c)