BSA Pānui - A matter of choice
Number 152
Kia ora koutou

As the end of year rapidly approaches, we’re pleased to launch the third videoopen_in_new in our ‘quick guide’ series.

This latest instalment complements our recently launched video guide to the complaints process, by offering guidance for complainants on how to choose the standard(s) that best fit their concerns.
 
When making a formal broadcasting standards complaint, the complainant must allege a breach of the standards.

Our video gives a brief outline of each standard, with details on the type of content it applies to and the BSA’s main considerations when evaluating complaints under each.
 
Our new plain-English video on choosing a standard – along with a helpful written guide in multiple languages – can be seen on the BSA website hereopen_in_new.
Closure of safeviewing.co.nz website
 
As flagged in our last Pānui, the now obsolete safeviewing.co.nz website is being shut down.
Our new video guide to safe viewing and listeningopen_in_new is now our ‘go-to’ resource for audiences on the tools they can use to make informed viewing and listening choices.
 
We encourage broadcasters and others to direct audiences to the BSA’s safe viewing/listening web pageopen_in_new – home to our new video and a written guide in several languages – in any audience-facing comms and resources that previously referenced safeviewing.co.nz.
 
Quick guide series
 
The Authority’s full series of quick-guide videos can now be seen in one place on a dedicated BSA web page hereopen_in_new.
 
The new resources reflect feedback from audiences and broadcasters on how they prefer to receive information, and are part of our commitment to making the broadcasting standards system accessible to all.
 
Broadcasters may like to consider pointing or linking to these resources in communications to audiences about the complaints process, standards, and tools for making informed viewing and listening choices.
Broadcaster publicity notices
 
We occasionally receive queries about the publicity notices broadcasters use so audiences are aware of their rights under the broadcasting standards system. So it seems timely to give a refresher on what’s required and how broadcasters can meet their obligations.
 
The Broadcasting Act requires TV and radio broadcasters to air promos informing listeners and viewers that they can make a formal complaint if they think a programme has breached standards, and outlining the process for complaining.
 
Each publicity notice must be at least 15 seconds long and we recommend broadcasters include the following:
  • the requirement that formal complaints be made:
    • in writing
    • within 20 working days of the broadcast
    • to the broadcaster – except for privacy complaints and election programme complaints, which may be made directly to the BSA
  • the broadcaster’s contact details for sending complaints
  • the right to refer a complaint to the BSA if the complainant is unhappy with the outcome
  • where to go for more information on the complaints process – the broadcaster’s or BSA’s website address.
There’s flexibility and room for creativity in how broadcasters convey this information to their audience. A sample template/script for a simple publicity notice is available in multiple languages hereopen_in_new.
 
Publicity notices must be aired frequently enough so that each channel or station averages one notice per day. The times of day must be varied so that over the course of a year notices are aired across all programming times.
 
Further detail on broadcaster publicity notices is available, in English and te reo Māori, on our website hereopen_in_new.
 
Broadcasting standards refresher sessions
 
As part of our education and engagement function, the BSA offers refresher sessions on the broadcasting standards system and complaints process for broadcasters and broadcasting training providers. These are interactive and can generally be completed within an hour. They’re particularly useful for new team members, those wanting to refresh their understanding, and students seeking a general grounding in the standards system. If you’d like to book a session for your team, please be in touch.
 
If there are others you know of who may find the resources and information in this Pānui useful, please don’t hesitate to share them via your networks.

Ngā mihi mahana
Stacey Wood
Chief Executive
FEATURED DECISIONS

Hopwood & Hopwood-Craig and Discovery NZ Ltd - 2024-073 (20 November 2024) open_in_new

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on 7 Days was unfair to a singer who performed the New Zealand national anthem ahead of an All Blacks game in San Diego. The complainants said the broadcast was unfair to the performer and unbalanced, noting she was accused of ‘butchering’ the anthem and called ‘Dunedin’s most well-known murderer’. The Authority found the programme was not unfair, noting: viewers were unlikely to interpret the programme as suggesting the performer was an actual murderer or criminal; having chosen to perform at such an event, she could reasonably expect comment on her performance; viewers would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of the performer; comments were directed at the performance rather than the performer personally; and that comedy and satire are valuable forms of expression. The balance standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance


Pack-Baldry, Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa, Taylor-Moore & Wellington Palestine Group and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2024-040 (12 November 2024) open_in_new

The Authority has not upheld four complaints that interviews on Q+A with Israeli and Palestinian representatives breached multiple broadcasting standards. On 21 April 2024, Jack Tame from Q+A interviewed Ran Yaakoby, the Israeli Ambassador to New Zealand. On 5 May 2024, Q+A interviewed Dr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi, head of the Palestinian Delegation to New Zealand. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims that: statements made by Yaakoby and Tame were inaccurate; Tame did not push back hard enough on Yaakoby; the interviews did not provide balance; the 21 April interview was unfair to Hamas, offensive, and discriminatory. The Authority did not uphold complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis: the relevant points concerned opinion to which the standard does not apply; reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy; any harm was outweighed by freedom of expression; or the points were not materially inaccurate. The balance standard was not breached due to the widespread reporting of significant perspectives on the conflict and because the interviews were each clearly signalled as providing the interviewees’ perspectives. The Authority found content in the 21 April interview was not unfair to Hamas, would not have disproportionately offended or disturbed the audience, and did not reach the high threshold required to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority also noted the high public interest in current affairs coverage of the Israel/Hamas conflict and the valuable expression contained in the interviews, finding any harm caused by the relevant broadcasts was insufficient to outweigh the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the audience’s right to hear, and judge for themselves, the arguments of the Israeli government.

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

LATEST DECISIONS

NEWS AND RESEARCH
New Zealand International

Subscribe to the BSA Pānui newsletteropen_in_new