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 about an item on 1News about a spate of dog attacks in South Auckland. During the item’s introduction, an image of a black and white dog was depicted behind the presenter. The complainant said the image was of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (‘Staffy) and its use may erroneously ‘encourage viewers to be fearful of Staffies, maybe even encouraging mistreatment’. The Authority found use of the image would not have caused viewers to fear or mistreat Staffies. The item did not suggest certain dog breeds are dangerous. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy

The broadcast

[1]  The 23 November 2024 broadcast of 1News included an item about dog attacks in South Auckland. The 1News presenter introduced the segment:

A South Auckland Community Board is vowing to do more to help stop an ongoing spate of attacks by roaming dogs in the area. Across the city, dog attacks have increased 17% in the past year. [1News reporter] has the latest developments. 

[2]  An image of what appears to be a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (‘Staffy’) was depicted behind the presenter during the introduction.

[3]  The remainder of the broadcast was as follows:

Reporter:                    The move to stop attacks like this in South Auckland is gaining momentum. Two roaming dogs caught on CCTV last month, the pair snatching a treasured cat, Malibu, from the front porch of her home and mauling her to death nearby.

[During this, censored CCTV footage of the attack on Malibu was shown on-screen]

Malibu’s owner:        We've got a problem here and now that needs to be sorted, and it needs to be sorted by doing something different than what we've done in the past. 

Reporter:                    A hot topic for discussion at a community meeting last week. 

Malibu’s owner:        There were about 60 people there, and probably over 50% of the people there have lost or had an animal attacked. 

Board member:         One owner that was at the meeting on Monday night, she's had two animals - or two cats - killed in the last six months. 

Reporter:                    It’s spurred Manurewa’s local board into action, with plans to boost patrols in the area. 

Board member:         We have every intention from the local board and myself to ensure that that's led, and we see more patrols out on the streets, picking up dogs before they become a problem. 

Reporter:                    For many in this community, extra help can't come soon enough. Just two weeks ago, a dog being walked on a lead in this street was set upon by a roaming dog. The attacking dog then turned on the owner, who managed to fight it off and make it home safely. The owner, who didn't want to be identified, shared pictures of her young dog. She says they're both okay, but it was a confronting ordeal as the aggressive dog snapped, snarled and bared its teeth. Animal Management says it's aware of community concerns about attacks on people. 

Animal Mgmt.:           It's why my team are in those areas, patrolling every day. It's why the community has seen an increase in our patrols around the area. 

Reporter:                    And it's why, if there’s reasonable grounds, dogs are seized and held here pending further investigation. 

The complaint

[4]  Ashley Mooney complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. The item centred on dangerous dogs and opened with an image of a Staffy but the two dogs shown attacking a cat were not Staffies. Staffies are also exceptionally gentle, highly intelligent and affectionate, especially with children. The broadcast was ‘seriously misleading’ and will erroneously ‘encourage viewers to be fearful of Staffies, maybe even encouraging mistreatment’.

The broadcaster’s response

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

Discrimination and denigration

• The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and to foster a community commitment to equality. Denigration has been consistently defined by the Authority to mean the blackening of the reputation of a class of people. The standard therefore does not apply to individuals, organisations, or animals (eg different dog breeds).

Accuracy

• The image of a dog at the start of the broadcast was acceptable, given the issue examined in the broadcast is a ‘“dog problem”, not a specific breed problem’. The item did not claim specific dog breeds were responsible for the attacks in South Auckland, and it ‘certainly’ did not encourage viewers to mistreat any animal.
• Although the breed of the ‘problem animals’ shown in the broadcast cannot be reliably identified, dogs akin to the one in the image in question have been filmed roaming in South Auckland.
• Given various articles cited by TVNZ in their decision, TVNZ did not agree that ‘a claim can be made that Staffies will not attack people or other animals’.

The standard

[6]  The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard (Standard 4) is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and to foster a community commitment to equality.¹ The standard states:²

Broadcast content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (Standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.³ The standard states:⁴

• 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

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

[9]  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.⁵

Discrimination and denigration

[10]  The wording of the discrimination and denigration standard is based on the grounds for discrimination listed in s 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993, and the standard applies only to classes of people and recognised sections of the community.⁶ It does not apply to animals and, in turn, to the complainant’s concerns.

Accuracy

[11]  The image in question was included in the item as a visual illustration of the subject matter of the 1News item. It did not amount to a ‘material point of fact’ for the purposes of the accuracy standard.⁷ The question is therefore whether the image was materially misleading, by giving viewers a ‘wrong idea or impression of the facts’.⁸

[12]  No comment was made about the photograph in the item, nor was it suggested that certain dog breeds are dangerous and responsible for the attacks. Instead, the broadcast discussed the risk caused by individual dogs that are dangerous, roaming free in South Auckland. Therefore, in our view, the audience would have understood the image was merely a background for the item’s introduction, and its use was unlikely to cause viewers to fear or mistreat Staffies.⁹ Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under 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
29 April 2025    

Appendix

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

1  Mooney’s original complaint and clarification of relevant standards – 23 and 26 November 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision – 19 December 2024

3  Mooney’s referral to the Authority – 25 December 2024

4  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 31 January 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
² Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁴ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Palmer and Television New Zealand, Decision No. 2020-043 at [10]
⁷ For a similar finding, see Balfour and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2012-040 at [55] and [56]
⁸ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ For a similar finding, see Balfour and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2012-040 at [56]