BSA Pānui - External review findings on Accuracy decisions

Number 161
Kia ora koutou

Accuracy has consistently ranked as the most complained about of the eight broadcasting standards in recent years. In an era of proliferating misinformation and disinformation, access to trustworthy, accurate information is essential to maintaining a well-functioning democracy.
 
The accuracy standard’s purpose is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.The Broadcasting Standards Codebook says broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead.
 
Where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period.
 
As part of our work to ensure standards are being applied consistently and fairly, we engage external experts to review Authority decisions on a particular topic or standard. This year we invited Peter Thompson, associate professor in the Media and Communication Programme at Te Herenga Waka (Victoria University of Wellington) to independently review five recent BSA decisions where the accuracy standard was applied.
 
These traversed topics ranging from the polarising and pervasive coverage of conflict in the Middle East, to the boating dangers of crossing sand bars, and misleading comments about ethnic priority for surgical waitlists.
 
Assoc Prof Thompson concluded the BSA is undertaking its responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act ‘with appropriate diligence and general consistency’.
 
He gave a general endorsement of the decisions and agreed with the BSA’s determinations to uphold, or not uphold, each complaint. He found that the Authority’s deliberations ‘evidence careful and systematic application of the accuracy standard’, starting with the right to freedom of expression.
 
He also suggested areas which could have been further developed, relating to:
  • distinguishing fact from opinion
  • reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy
  • requirements to correct inaccuracies.
Assoc Prof Thompson also noted the complexity of ascertaining accuracy in practice, highlighting the challenges for media in achieving accuracy, and for the BSA in determining it.
 
The full report is now available to broadcasters and other stakeholders who may find it useful.
 
You can find it on our website hereopen_in_new.

Ngā mihi mahana
Stacey Wood
Chief Executive
FEATURED DECISIONS


Minto and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2025-017 (29 July 2025) open_in_new

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about a 1News report on the start of a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, and the first hostage/prisoner exchange as part of the deal. The complaint included claims the broadcast: failed to identify the West Bank as occupied; inaccurately cited how many were killed at the Nova festival and the identity of those attending the festival; inaccurately described the origin of the cars in the ‘car wall’; used ‘gratuitous adjectival framing to discredit Palestinian supporters’; and was overall unbalanced. Noting the challenges of verifying certain facts presented in the broadcast, the Authority did not uphold the complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy, or the relevant points were not materially inaccurate or misleading. The balance standard was not breached because it does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented without bias; significant alternative perspectives were included in the broadcast; and there was widespread reporting of significant perspectives on the hostage exchange and the Israel-Hamas conflict generally. 

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy


Elford and Rhema Media Inc - 2025-028 (29 July 2025) open_in_new

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that presenters’ comments during a fundraising appeal promotion for Rhema Media’s Sanctuary Radio breached the accuracy standard. The presenters referred to the station as ‘listener funded’ which the complainant argued was misleading as Rhema Media also receives income from commercial businesses, charities and other sources. The broadcaster confirmed it is 85% listener funded, with listener support and contributions crucial to its identity and operations. The Authority found the term ‘listener funded’ in the context was part of brand messaging and audience engagement intended to rally support, rather than stating as fact the station is 100% listener funded. The Authority considered the risk of listeners being materially misled was low and did not justify restricting the broadcaster’s freedom of expression in the way it presented its fundraising promotion.

Not Upheld: Accuracy 
 

LATEST DECISIONS

 

NEWS AND RESEARCH

New Zealand International

Subscribe to the BSA Pānui newsletteropen_in_new