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 allowing an interviewee to wear what appeared to be a keffiyeh during an interview about the government’s introduction of new ‘move-on’ orders breached the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority found broadcasting the interviewee wearing this garment would not have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or have had the effect of encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, Jewish people. It noted, if the garment was in fact a keffiyeh, the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic. The balance and fairness standards did not apply.

Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 23 February 2026 broadcast of Breakfast included an interview with ‘Kick Back’ co-founder about the Government introducing new ‘move-on’ orders targeting rough sleepers and disorderly behaviour. During the interview, the interviewee wore what appeared to be a black and white keffiyeh draped around his neck. The garment was not referred to during the interview.

The complaint

[2]  Tony Parsons complained the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, balance and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, by allowing the interviewee to wear a keffiyeh during his interview (complainant’s emphasis below).

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[3]  Under this standard, Parsons said:

a)  ‘[I]n the current New Zealand context, [the keffiyeh] is used in protests that have included hostile rhetoric.’

b)  ‘Jewish viewers may reasonably experience distress seeing a political symbol linked to recent tensions.’

c)  ‘The distress can be “significant” even if the community is small.’

d)  ‘The symbol was unexpected and unrelated to the interview topic, meeting the threshold of “unexpected disturbing material”.’

Discrimination and Denigration

[4]  Parsons argued that ‘allowing explicit political symbolism without context or editorial oversight contributes to an environment of insensitivity toward a minority community’s [Jewish people’s] safety concerns’.

Balance

[5]  Under the balance standard Parsons stated:

a)  ‘[T]he inclusion of a political symbol created an implicit political viewpoint within a segment that otherwise had no political dimension.’

b)  ‘[S]uch a viewpoint was unacknowledged and unbalanced.’

c)  ‘BSA precedent explicitly recognises that visual symbols can constitute political expression.’

Fairness

[6]  Parsons considered the fairness standard operated to protect the audience, where programme presentation creates misleading or biased impressions. He said, ‘Allowing a political symbol in a neutral domestic segment can create an impression of partiality, which affects viewer fairness.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[8]  Under this standard, TVNZ noted:

a)  It did not agree the keffiyeh is a hostile and intimidating symbol. ‘The keffiyeh has become a symbol of the Palestinian people, and when worn by non-Palestinian people it is seen as a symbol of support for Palestinians.’

b)  The keffiyeh is ‘not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians and Gazans anti-Semitic’.

c)  ‘[G]uests’ clothing is, within reason, a matter of personal discretion and freedom of expression rights.’

d)  It did not agree the interviewee’s choice of clothing would have offended or disturbed a significant number of viewers.

Discrimination and Denigration

[9]  Noting its reasons under the offensive and disturbing content standard, TVNZ said the broadcast ‘clearly did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, Jewish people’.

Balance

[10]  TVNZ considered the complainant’s arguments under the balance standard (which applies to broadcasts which discuss a ‘controversial issue of public importance’) did not relate to the discussion that occurred.

Fairness

[11]  TVNZ considered the fairness standard did not apply, as it is designed to protect people and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts, and the complainant had ‘not identified a person or organisation who [they] believe was treated unfairly in the broadcast’.

The standards

[12]  The offensive and disturbing content standard states:¹

• Broadcast content should not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency or disproportionately offend or disturb the audience, taking into account:
  • the context of the programme and the wider context of the broadcast, and
  • the information given by the broadcaster to enable the audience to exercise choice and control over their own, and children’s, viewing or listening.

[13]  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.² The standard states:³

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.

[14]  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.

[15]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁶ The standard states:⁷

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

[16]  We consider the offensive and disturbing content and discrimination and denigration standards are most relevant to the complainant’s concerns, and have focused our assessment on these standards. The remaining standards are briefly addressed at the end of our decision.

Our analysis

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

[18]  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

Offensive and Disturbing Content

[19]  The purpose of this standard is to protect audiences from viewing or listening to broadcasts that are likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards.⁹

[20]  Attitudes differ widely and continue to evolve in New Zealand’s diverse society. Caution must therefore be exercised when considering matters of taste and decency. The feelings of the particularly sensitive cannot dictate what can be broadcast. However, broadcasts must not seriously violate community norms or disproportionately disturb the audience.¹⁰

[21]  The keffiyeh is a type of headdress traditionally worn by men in parts of the Middle East.¹¹ In the 1930s, the black and white checkered keffiyeh became a symbol of Palestinian identity, and since the commencement of the current phase of the Israel-Hamas war in 2023, ‘the keffiyeh has again emerged as a symbol of Palestinian unity’.¹² Keffiyeh are often worn by non-Palestinians as a sign of solidarity and support to Palestine, and have been widely worn by protesters in support of Palestine during recent demonstrations.¹³

[22]  We do not consider showing the interviewee wearing what appeared to be a keffiyeh in this broadcast was likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. The garment was not referred to during the interview, and in our view, many people would have thought it was just a scarf. Even if it was a keffiyeh, as the broadcaster submitted, the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic.

[23]  Allowing the free and frank expression of a wide range of views is a necessary part of living in a democracy.¹⁴ If the interviewee was wearing the garment as a sign of support for Palestinians, they have a right to freedom of expression, including political expression, and we do not consider it reasonable or justified for either the broadcaster or the Authority to restrict this, in the circumstances.

[24]  We therefore do not uphold the complaint under the offensive and disturbing content standard.

Discrimination and Denigration

[25]  ‘Discrimination’ is defined as encouraging the different treatment of the members of a particular section of the community, to their detriment. ‘Denigration’ is defined as devaluing the reputation of a particular section of the community.¹⁵

[26]  The importance of freedom of expression means a high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will usually be necessary to find a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard. Broadcast content which has the effect of reinforcing or embedding negative stereotypes may also be considered.¹⁶ Similar to the offensive and disturbing content standard, content will not breach the standard simply because it may offend some people.¹⁷

[27]  The complainant has argued the broadcast contributed to ‘an environment of insensitivity’ toward a minority community’s safety concerns.

[28]  While we appreciate some Jewish people may have found the interviewee’s choice of garment offensive, we do not consider the effect of the broadcast was to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, Jewish people as a section of the community. As noted, if this was indeed a keffiyeh, the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic.

[29]  We therefore do not uphold the complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard.

Remaining standards

[30]  The remaining nominated standards do not apply:

• Balance: The balance standard is directed at ensuring significant viewpoints are presented in broadcasts which discuss controversial issues of public importance.¹⁸ The complainant’s core concerns relate to the offensiveness of the interviewee’s garment rather than the omission of a significant viewpoint on the topic being discussed.
• Fairness: The fairness standard applies to individuals or organisations taking part in or referred to during a broadcast. Its purpose is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes – it does not address ‘fairness’ to the audience.¹⁹ 

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
10 June 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Parsons’ original complaint – 25 February 2026

2  TVNZ’s decision – 13 March 2026

3  Parsons’ referral to the Authority – 13 March 2026

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 31 March 2026

¹ Standard 1: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 6
² Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
³ Standard 4: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
⁴ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁵ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁷ Standard 8: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 19
⁸ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁹ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 8
¹⁰ Commentary: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand page 8
¹¹ Britannica “keffiyeh” (last updated: 21 April 2026) <britannica.com>
¹² Britannica “keffiyeh” (last updated: 21 April 2026) <britannica.com>
¹³ See for example: RNZ Digital Reporters “Watch: Pro-Palestinian protests across country call on government to sanction Israel” RNZ (online ed, 16 August 2025)
¹⁴ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁵ Guideline 4.1: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁶ Guideline 4.2: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁷ Commentary: Discrimination and Denigration, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
¹⁸ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹⁹ Commentary: Fairness, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20