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 brief 1News update on the ongoing conflict between Iran and the United States breached the balance standard. The Authority has consistently recognised the brevity of such broadcasts, providing updates on recent events, means they typically do not constitute a ‘discussion’ of issues for the purposes of the balance standard. Even if the balance standard did apply, it would not have been breached as the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other reporting, and the item did not purport to be an in-depth analysis of the conflict or the issues raised by the complainant.

Not Upheld: Balance

The broadcast

[1]  The 30 March 2026 broadcast of 1News included an update on the war between the United States (US), Israel and Iran. The item, in full, was as follows:

1News presenter:      Well, it's crunch time for Donald Trump as thousands more American troops amass in the Middle East. The USS Tripoli, an amphibious assault unit carrying 3500 Marines and sailors, the latest to arrive. There are now more than 50,000 US forces in the region, 10000 more than usual. That's still not enough to fully invade Iran but they could seize islands or raid coastlines to try to re-open the Strait of Hormuz. All options are risky. Iran warning today, ‘…our men are waiting to set them on fire and punish their regional partners forever’. As if to make this point, a desalination plant has been struck in Kuwait, which gets 90% of its water this way. More than 300 American service members have already been wounded, 13 have died. Iran recently destroying an almost $900 million battlefield control plane, a US military crown jewel. The US President has given Iran until the 6^th of April to open the Strait of Hormuz.

Steve Scalise:           There are no boots on the ground today, but we're having a lot of conversations about what could happen next. But I think most people, most civilised people, recognise a nuclear armed Iran is not an option that any of us want. 

1News presenter:      One US-based human rights group says nearly 3500 Iranians have been killed by US-Israeli strikes, more than 1500 of them civilians. 
And get the latest developments on the Iran war and the ongoing oil crisis it's triggered – that’s on Breakfast tomorrow from 6am. 

[2]  During the item’s introduction, on-screen text briefly read, ‘Iran conflict’.

The complaint

[3]  Phil Taikato complained the broadcast was an ‘unbalanced report on Israel’s/USA’s war on Iran’, in breach of the balance standard of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand:

a)  The broadcaster’s ‘continued reporting of this illegal war’ implies ‘Iran is the cause when it is clearly an illegal war brought on by Israel and USA’.

b)  Instead of ‘Iran conflict’, the on-screen text ‘needs to be […] something closer to the truth’ – for example, the American and Israeli illegal war on Iran.

c)  The broadcast included a quote from US House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, which reinforced ‘a false reason for the illegal war’. It has been proven that Iran is ‘nowhere near’ close to obtaining nuclear weapons.

d)  The broadcast did not provide further information about the US’ involvement in and responsibility for the bombing of a girls’ primary school in Minab, Iran – despite ‘sufficient evidence to show the commanders’ responsibility for that war crime’.

[4]  In referring the complaint to the Authority, the complainant said the broadcaster’s decision did not engage with his key concerns. ‘My concern wasn’t just about whether different viewpoints were included. It was about the way the story was put together, the language used, the order things were presented, and the overall impression it left with viewers.’ The complainant added:

a)  ‘The [broadcaster’s] response focuses heavily on the fact that a couple of perspectives were included, a US political voice and a short Iranian quote. But that misses the point. Those two things are not treated equally in the item. One is presented as a reasoned, authoritative position, the other comes across as reactive and emotive. That doesn’t balance the story, it shapes how the audience interprets it.’

b)  ‘I also don’t accept the idea that because this was “straight news reporting” the standard is somehow lower. Even in a short item, the choices about what to include, what to leave out, and how to frame it matter. Those choices influence how people understand what’s actually going on.’

c)  Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) claimed the term ‘Iran conflict’ is ‘neutral’. ‘That may be true if you look at the words on their own, but that’s not really what I was getting at. It’s the overall framing of the item, not just the label, that gives the impression of where responsibility sits.’

d)  ‘The suggestion that audiences can pick up the full picture from other broadcasts or sources doesn’t sit well with me either. Most people will watch that bulletin on its own. They should be able to come away from it with a reasonably clear and fair understanding of the situation without having to fill in the gaps elsewhere.’

e)  ‘Finally, I don’t see this as a matter of personal preference. This is about whether the reporting, taken as a whole, gives viewers enough context to understand a complex and serious international situation, or whether it ends up steering them in a particular direction.’

The broadcaster’s response

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

a)  The balance standard only applies to broadcasts that ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial issue of public importance’. TVNZ agreed the US-Iran-Israel conflict amounts to a controversial issue of public importance. However, the item ‘was essentially straight news reporting on recent developments, particularly US military mobilisation’. As a result, discussion of the issue – and, in turn, the balance standard’s applicability – was limited.

b)  Significant viewpoints were presented in the broadcast, including those of the United States and Iran.

c)  In its Complaints that are unlikely to succeed guidance¹, the Authority has noted, ‘Balance requirements reflect the current media landscape where opportunities to learn about different politicians and perspectives are typically available from multiple sources. Audiences are not dependent on any one programme for all of their political information or analysis.’

[6]  In response to the complaint referral, TVNZ said the phrase ‘Iran conflict’ does not suggest Iran are the ‘aggressors or “driving the conflict”, as alleged in the referral’. Although ‘a statement and attack from Iran are briefly mentioned in the report for the purposes of providing balance and informing the viewer’, the item ‘frames [Iran’s] position as a defensive one’. The United States and Israel were ‘clearly’ framed as ‘aggressors’. Further, 1News and ‘many other outlets’ have reported the United States and Israel initiated this conflict.

The standard

[7]  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.² The standard states:³

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.

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.⁴

[10]  Several criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is engaged. The standard only applies to ‘news, current affairs, and factual programmes’. The subject matter must be an issue of ‘public importance’, it must be ‘controversial’, and it must be ‘discussed’.⁵

[11]  As outlined at paragraph [7] above, the purpose of the balance standard is to ensure the availability of significant perspectives when a controversial issue of public importance is discussed, allowing the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.⁶ However, the Authority rarely upholds complaints under the standard about short news broadcasts, as they do not typically constitute a ‘discussion’ of issues for the purposes of the standard.⁷ 

[12]  In our view, the broadcast in question was a straightforward report on recent events rather than a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance requiring the presentation of significant viewpoints. The item, lasting approximately one and a half minutes, provided viewers with information about the current state of the conflict. It briefly covered:

• the arrival of ‘thousands more’ US troops in the Middle East
• Iran’s ‘warning’ to the US, and the US perspective at that stage of the war
• the 6 April deadline, given by President Trump to Iran, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz
• the conversations underway, and the losses (human and/or property) suffered so far by those involved and affected by the conflict. 

[13]  Viewers would not look to such a programme for an understanding of the issues raised by the complainant – ie the origins and causes of the war, Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and the Minab school bombing. Accordingly, we do not consider the balance standard is engaged in this instance.

[14]  Even if the standard did apply, however, we would not find any breach. This is for the following reasons:

a)  As outlined in the commentary to the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, balance complaints will rarely be upheld given the proliferation of information available to today’s audiences from a vast range of sources. The standard is instead designed to provide protection where balancing viewpoints on controversial issues have not been available across time, different programmes or different media.⁸ However, developments in the conflict between the US, Israel and Iran have been the subject of regular, ongoing coverage by TVNZ and other outlets.⁹ Viewers could therefore reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other reporting, including viewpoints regarding the issues raised by the complainant.¹⁰

b)  The broadcast did not purport to be an in-depth analysis of the conflict or the issues raised by the complainant. The Codebook recognises that in such instances, the requirement to present significant points of view can be reduced or negated.¹¹ 

c)  Broadcasters are entitled to provide updates on an ongoing issue without each item requiring detailed background context on the subject matter.¹²

[15]  The complainant clarified their central concern ‘wasn’t just about whether different viewpoints were included [in the broadcast]. It was about the way the story was put together, the language use, the order things were presented, and the overall impression it [left] with viewers.’ However, the balance standard does not address such editorial choices. It addresses whether competing viewpoints about significant issues are, or should be made, available. If the presentation of a story materially misleads the audience, that is an issue for the accuracy standard rather than the balance standard.¹³ In any event, we do not consider the features described by the complainant would have mislead or misinformed the audience in the context of this brief update on developments.

[16]  Accordingly, we find no breach of the standard.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
9 September 2026    

Appendix

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

1  Taikato’s original complaint – 30 March 2026

2  TVNZ’s decision – 23 April 2026

3  Taikato’s referral to the Authority – 23 April 2026

4  TVNZ’s response to the referral – 15 May 2026

5  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comments – 26 June 2026

¹ Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” (“Balance (coverage of politicians)“) <bsa.govt.nz>
² Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
³ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁴ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁵ Guideline 5.1: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁶ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁷ See Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14; and Broadcasting Standards Authority | Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho “Complaints that are unlikely to succeed” (“Balance (brief news broadcasts)”) <bsa.govt.nz>. See also, for example, Watkin and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2025-041 at [9]-[11]; Grinwis and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-090 at [9]-[10]; and OH and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-077 at [10]-[12]
⁸ Commentary: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
⁹ Martin and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2026-006 at [28]. See footnotes 2 and 15 of Martin and Television New Zealand Ltd for citations referencing 1News coverage (broadcast and online articles) between 2 January and 8 February 2026, of the conflict between Iran and the US. Other coverage of the US-Israeli war on Iran from closer to the time of the relevant 1News broadcast include: Farah N Jan “US bombing of Iran shows little evidence of endgame strategy” 1News (online ed, 4 March 2026); Chelsea Daniels “Could boots on the ground in Iran backfire on the US? – The Front Page” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, 30 March 2026); Christian Edwards, Thomas Bordeaux, Gianluca Mezzofiore, Quinta Thomson, and Isobel Yeung “Analysis suggests US was responsible for deadly strike on Iranian elementary school” RNZ (online ed, 7 March 2026);  Issy Ronald “What we know about the widening US conflict with Iran on the conflict’s third day” RNZ (online ed, 3 March 2026); and Jon Gambrell, Lee Keath, and Munir Ahmed “What to know about possible talks to wind down the Iran war” Stuff (online ed, 25 March 2026).
¹⁰ Standard 5: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹¹ See Guideline 5.4: Balance, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
¹² For a similar finding, see Martin and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2026-006 at [28]; and Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2026-010 at [12]
¹³ See Standard 6: Accuracy, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand