- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- New Zealand
- /
- Greene v Television New Zealand Ltd
Greene v Television New Zealand Ltd
About this case
Filing year
2024
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
New Zealand → Broadcasting Standards Authority
Case category
Suits against corporations, individuals → Others
Principal law
New Zealand → Broadcasting Standards Codebook
At issue
Whether a news broadcast on extreme weather events was misleading and thus inaccurate for failing to state the climate crisis as their cause.
Topics
, ,
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics
Beta
Search results
Summary
Matt Greene filed a complaint to the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority against Television New Zealand (TVNZ) about a segment of 1News broadcast on July 9, 2024, on TVNZ 1. The report at issue reported on extreme weather events in the United States, including a "long-running heatwave" in many parts of the country, wildfires, storms, and floods. Greene alleged that TVNZ's failure to state the events as being directly caused by the climate crisis cannot be justified, because climate change is a pressing issue that necessitates “urgent and bold action” and “explicit links to all extreme weather events.” For this reason, Greeene alleged that TVNZ breached the accuracy standard under the 2022 Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand.
The Authority, led by Susie Staley, decided not to uphold the complaint on September 25, 2024. Under the codebook, the accuracy standard requires broadcasters to make reasonable efforts to ensure factual content is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and does not materially mislead. On whether the content is misleading, the Authority held that "[i]t is possible for programmes to be misleading by omission." Explaining that "[t]he accuracy standard is . . . concerned only with material inaccuracies," the Authority found that "[n]ot mentioning climate change did not give a wrong idea or impression of the events depicted," considering the specific content of the report. The Authority also clarified that, based on the right to freedom of expression, they will only intervene and uphold a complaint when the broadcast has caused actual or potential harm. Finding that reporting on extreme weather events is of significant public interest regardless of whether the climate crisis is expressly cited, the Authority stated that it will not intervene "unless the broadcast created a risk of serious harm," which was not found in the current case.
Topics mentioned most in this case Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Risk
Economic sector