Skip to main content

Maasland & Others and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2014-118

Members

  • Peter Radich (Chair)
  • Mary Anne Shanahan
  • Leigh Pearson
  • Te Raumawhitu Kupenga

Complainants

  • Shoshanna Maasland
  • Gary Martin & Ors
  • New Zealand Jewish Council
  • Richard Parker
  • Alex Schanzer

Dated

14th August 2015

Number

2014-118

Programme

Sunday Morning

Channel/Station

Radio New Zealand National

Broadcaster

Radio New Zealand Ltd

Summary

[This summary does not form part of the decision.]

Sunday Morning contained two items on the historical relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa: Counterpoint contained a discussion of the relationship between Israel and South Africa and of Israel's arms industry; and an interview with an anti-apartheid activist discussed this topic as well as modern-day Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast breached the controversial issues standard, as no alternative perspective was presented either within the broadcast, in any proximate broadcast or in other media. The Authority declined to uphold the remainder of the complaints because: the statements complained of were either expressions of opinion or matters the Authority cannot determine and therefore were not subject to the accuracy standard; the statements did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the programme did not treat any individual or organisation unfairly.

Upheld: Controversial Issues

Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness

No Order


Introduction

[1]  Sunday Morning reported on the historical relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa. The broadcast comprised two parts. The first item, Counterpoint, contained a discussion of the relationship between Israel and South Africa and of Israel's arms industry. The second item featured an interview with an anti-apartheid activist, who discussed this topic as well as modern-day Israel's treatment of Palestinians, comparing it to apartheid South Africa.

[2]  Shoshana Maasland, Gary Martin (on behalf of himself and five others), the New Zealand Jewish Council (NZJC), Richard Parker and Alex Schanzer complained that the interviewee's comments were anti-Semitic and that the broadcast as a whole was inaccurate and heavily biased against Israel and Jewish people.

[3]  The issue is whether the broadcast breached the controversial issues, accuracy, discrimination and denigration and fairness standards, as set out in the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice. In our view the controversial issues standard is the most relevant so we have focused our determination accordingly.

[4]  The items were broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on 24 August 2014. The members of the Authority have listened to a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

Nature of the programme and freedom of expression

[5]  Sunday Morning is described by RNZ as being 'a thought-provoking range of interviews, documentaries and music'. The host of Sunday Morning is described as 'fearless' and as 'ask[ing] that very hard question in a very simple, direct way'.

[6]  The first item was Counterpoint, which discussed South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu's article in an Israeli newspaper which challenged Israel to 'liberate the Palestinians' and compared Israel's treatment of Palestine to apartheid. The Counterpoint presenter went on to discuss Israel's relationship with apartheid South Africa, which allegedly involved Israel selling arms to South Africa during a global boycott. This led to a discussion of modern-day Israel's weapons manufacturing industry, which, according to the presenter, is doing a 'booming trade' as one of the world's 'top four' arms exporters due to its weapons being 'battle-tested' against Hamas. He said this was 'probably not conducive to moving towards a peace agreement when hostilities provide such a perfect test lab'.

[7]  The Sunday Morning host then conducted a live interview with a 'founding member of the ANC's [African National Congress, South Africa's current governing political party] Australian office and specialist in the management of international aid projects'. He asked the interviewee, 'How did the ANC view Israel in those days?' The interviewee commented on how strange it was that a country with a pro-Nazi government, as governed in South Africa during apartheid, would end up being a recipient country for Jewish people, but noted that he was grateful for this to some extent because some Jewish people 'contributed immensely' to the struggle against apartheid. However, he noted that 'Zionist elements within the Jewish community, and I make that distinction [from secular Jewish people] and emphasise that distinction ... actively facilitated, to this day, a very, very symbiotic connection between apartheid South Africa and Zionist Israel. There is a long history to this'.

[8]  The host then asked, 'What is the relationship like now between Israel and South Africa? How has it changed?' The interviewee noted that 'a very small minority' of secular Jews in South Africa were 'revered individuals of the struggle' against apartheid. He went on to say, 'We are painfully and gruesomely reminded, especially in this current genocidal onslaught on Palestinians in Gaza, that Zionism represents for us a daily reminder of the collaborationist part of the Jewish community that we know as Zionists, but who often masquerade behind Jewish-sounding organisational names (and we draw this distinction quite clearly) that we regard... as being a grave threat'.

[9]  The host followed this with the question, 'Was Israel South Africa's only source of weapons during the boycotts?' The interviewee said that others had also sold weapons to South Africa but contended that Israel contributed 'nuclear, biological and chemical know-how' to apartheid South Africa. He said that this was 'the particular contribution of the Zionist community in South Africa to the ongoing oppression of South Africans under apartheid. They continue to do that to this day'. He referenced what he called 'an expression' that 'Zionism and apartheid are the spiritual twins of Nazism'. He stated that you could not have a 'more apt and appropriate slogan to encapsulate in a nutshell the ideological and operational similarities between Zionist Israel and apartheid South Africa'.

[10]  The host's final question was, 'Will the Palestinian/Israel situation ever be solved as was apartheid?' The interviewee quoted Nelson Mandela in saying that 'South Africans could never truly savour the joys of freedom until the Palestinian people were free'. He concluded by applauding the 'superb resistance, resilience and fortitude of the Palestinian people' and said he was inspired by 'the valiant resistance that they have put up against overwhelming odds against the fourth most powerful army in the world'. The host concluded the interview, saying, 'Well, let's hope, eh?'

[11]  This item carried a high level of public interest. The Gaza conflict is an important issue to explore and report on and the interview contributed to discourse on this issue. The high value of the speech, the significance of the issues and freedom of expression – both of the broadcaster to impart ideas and of the audience's right to receive these ideas – must be weighed against the level of harm alleged to have been caused by the broadcast.

Overview

[12]  This decision encompasses analysis of complaints from five different individuals or groups under four different standards, with a variety of alleged breaches under each of those standards. Overall, and having carefully considered the competing interests of freedom of speech and the necessity for informative discussion on this topic, we have identified that the main area of concern is that this broadcast lacked balance in its treatment of a controversial issue. We have dealt briefly with the remaining standards of accuracy, discrimination and denigration and fairness from paragraph [31] below.

Was the broadcast required to be balanced, and if so, did the broadcaster provide sufficient balance on the issue discussed?

[13]  The balance standard (Standard 4) states that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs and factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest. The standard exists to ensure that competing arguments are presented to enable a viewer to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.1

[14]  Mr Parker argued that RNZ did not attempt to offer another perspective on the interviewee's statements about the 'genocidal onslaught' in Gaza and that 'Zionism and apartheid are the spiritual twins of Nazism'. Mr Parker said that he 'support[ed] the right of [the interviewee] to make the statement he did but [he] also believe[d] a broadcaster has an obligation to challenge those statements when they are blatantly untrue or to provide some balance'. Mr Martin argued that the broadcast offered no right of reply or opposing viewpoint, 'making it more difficult for listeners to formulate their own "informed" opinions'.

[15]  The NZJC argued that Archbishop Tutu has 'well-known polarising views on Israel and Jews', and that 'it was at the very least incumbent on [RNZ] to acknowledge this and present counter-arguments'. It also argued that the Counterpoint segment 'would have left the audience with the impression that Israel was wantonly and gratuitously attacking Gaza to test its latest weapons and boost its arms trade' and also said that the interviewee's statement about the 'genocidal onslaught' was not balanced.

[16]  Ms Maasland argued that 'no alternative view, either through another perspective or challenging questioning by the interviewer, was given to the virulently anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rhetoric expressed' by the interviewee. She gave the following as examples of statements that should have been balanced:

  •  there are 'ideological and operational similarities between Zionist Israel and apartheid South Africa'; and
  •  Palestinian fighters were putting up 'valiant resistance... against overwhelming odds'.

[17]  RNZ acknowledged that there were 'issues in terms of how the programme was prepared for air and how the interview... was handled'. It advised some of the comments made by the interviewee 'went well beyond what he indicated would be covered'. RNZ said that had they 'known in advance what [the interviewee] would actually say, it would have been able to decide whether it would continue to invite his comment and if so, what matters the interviewer could challenge or what further material by way of debate would be desirable'. It said that the host 'did not anticipate the full scope of the comments' and thus 'was not in a position to debate or challenge those comments'. It considered that if the host had terminated the interview abruptly, it would have 'drawn even greater attention' to the comments. RNZ maintained that the 'the expression of such strongly held political views' is highly valuable, and that upholding the complaints would have a 'chilling effect' on broadcasters and would unreasonably limit free speech.

[18]  Further, RNZ submitted that 'as there has been extensive coverage of the Middle East situation, there was no breach of the standard on this occasion'. RNZ claimed that it had offered evidence of balancing comment in response to a previous complaint, Bolot, Finlay and Gautier and Radio New Zealand Ltd,2 and submitted that 'it should not be incumbent on a broadcaster to have to go to those lengths of research [as in Bolot] every time such an accusation of [lack of] balance is put. It is proven in [Bolot] that our coverage is both extensive and impartial'.

[19]  A number of criteria must be satisfied before the requirement to present significant alternative viewpoints is triggered. The standard applies only to news, current affairs and factual programmes which discuss a controversial issue of public importance. The subject matter must be an issue 'of public importance', it must be 'controversial' and it must be 'discussed'.3 We are satisfied that this episode of Sunday Morning fell within the category of news, current affairs or factual programming.

[20]  Therefore, the primary issues for our determination are:

  •  Did the broadcast discuss a controversial issue of public importance?
  •  If yes, did the broadcaster make reasonable efforts or give reasonable opportunities to provide balance on the issue discussed within the programme, or in other programmes within the period of current interest?

Did the broadcast discuss a controversial issue of public importance?

[21]  The Authority has typically defined an issue of public importance as something that would have a 'significant potential impact on, or be of concern to, members of the New Zealand public'.4 A controversial issue is one which has topical currency and excites conflicting opinion or about which there has been ongoing public debate.5

[22]  We have previously accepted that the Gaza conflict, and particular developments within that conflict, amounts to a controversial issue of public importance.6 The main focus of this particular broadcast purported to be about Israel's historical relationship with apartheid South Africa. While in itself this may not be a controversial issue of public importance about which there has been widespread public discussion or debate, the broadcast was set in the context of the July/August 2014 Gaza conflict, and we consider it was intended to present a perspective on the wider conflict. Related to this the broadcast also discussed Israel's weapons industry, Archbishop Desmond Tutu's stance on modern-day Israel's treatment of Palestinians and 'the Palestinian situation'. We are therefore satisfied that the broadcast as a whole amounted to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, namely, the July/August 2014 developments in the Gaza conflict.

Did the broadcaster make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to provide balance on the issue discussed within the programme, or in other programmes within the period of current interest?

[23]  Having found that the items contained a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, the next question is whether RNZ made reasonable efforts, or gave reasonable opportunities, to provide balance either within the programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest, to enable listeners to reach an informed and reasoned opinion on the issues. In our view, the parts of the items that particularly required balance were:

  •  the interviewee's description of Israel's actions in Gaza as 'genocidal';
  •  the interviewee's contention that Zionism (which he equated with the modern-day Israeli nation) and apartheid were the 'spiritual twins of Nazism';
  •  the interviewee's statement that Palestinian fighters were putting up 'valiant resistance... against overwhelming odds'; and
  •  suggestions in the Counterpoint segment that Israel was benefiting financially from the war in Gaza, and was incentivised to prolong the conflict.

Interviewee's comments

[24]  As noted above (see paragraphs [17] to [18]), RNZ conceded that 'there were issues in terms of how the programme was prepared for air and how the interview... was handled', but did not consider that formal standards were breached. This was primarily because it considered that its coverage of this issue over time was 'extensive and impartial' and therefore balance was achieved within the period of current interest. RNZ did not point us to any specific balancing material that aired in proximity to this broadcast.

[25]  The wording of Standard 4 allows the broadcaster to make reasonable efforts to achieve balance either within the programme or within the period of current interest. After careful consideration, we have reached the view that some of the interviewee's comments were so extreme and focused on a particular aspect of the issue that they could not be balanced by other broadcasts dealing with the Gaza conflict generally. We also think it very unlikely that alternative perspectives could be found in other media that specifically countered the statements outlined at paragraph [23] above (for example, that Israel's actions in Gaza were 'genocidal' and were akin to Nazism).

[26]  Accordingly, we consider RNZ was required to present countering views at the time of the interview. Having said that, the opposing view did not necessarily have to come from another interviewee; the interviewer could have presented an alternative viewpoint by acting as 'devil's advocate' and challenging the interviewee's assertions, or alerting listeners to the existence of other perspectives.7 We acknowledge that this was a live interview and that the programme host probably was caught off-guard by the path the interview took. Nevertheless, he could have prepared for at least some of the comments made by the interviewee, given that even a simple internet search identifies him as an activist who regularly participates in pro-Palestinian protests.

[27]  RNZ describes this particular host as 'fearless' and asking the hard questions. Unfortunately we do not think he demonstrated this here. In a 12-minute interview, he asked only five questions, none of which was particularly provocative, for example, 'What is the relationship like now between Israel and South Africa?' and 'Will the Palestinian-Israel situation ever be solved as was apartheid?' At no point did he challenge the interviewee's statements; he essentially gave the interviewee free rein to espouse his views.

[28]  In the alternative, having identified after the fact that there were 'issues with... how the interview... was handled', RNZ could have arranged for a follow-up item or interview with the purpose of addressing the interviewees' comments and allegations.

Counterpoint comments

[29]  As we have stated above at paragraph [23], we also consider that the Counterpoint segment required balancing. This could have been adequately achieved during the interview which immediately followed Counterpoint. However, as we have discussed at paragraphs [24] to [28] above, no statements were made at any time during the broadcast that countered the statements made by the interviewee or during the Counterpoint segment.

Conclusion on balance

[30]  In conclusion, we do not consider that this broadcast enabled listeners to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion about the July/August 2014 developments in the Gaza conflict. We are satisfied that upholding the Standard 4 complaint would not unreasonably restrict the broadcaster's right to freedom of expression because requiring the presentation of an alternative viewpoint on a matter of public interest promotes, rather than hinders, the free flow of information and free speech principles. Accordingly, we uphold the complaints under Standard 4.

Was the broadcast inaccurate or misleading?

[31]  The accuracy standard (Standard 5) states that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is accurate in relation to all material points of fact, and does not mislead. The objective of this standard is to protect audiences from receiving misinformation and thereby being misled.8

[32]  The complainants identified a number of statements contained in the second part of the broadcast (the interview) which they considered to be inaccurate or misleading. Guideline 5a to the accuracy standard states that it does not apply to statements that are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. In our view, most of the statements complained about fell within this category, as they were clearly in the nature of commentary, the interviewee's own analysis or views of the situation in Gaza, or his personal opinion, and therefore the accuracy standard did not apply. Those statements were:

  •  'We are painfully and gruesomely reminded, especially in this current genocidal onslaught on Palestinians in Gaza...' [our emphasis]
  •  'Zionism and apartheid are the spiritual twins of Nazism.'
  •  There is a collaborationist part of the South African Jewish community that is Zionist that 'masquerade[s] behind Jewish sounding names' and is a 'grave threat' internally to South Africa and to South Africa's foreign policy interests.
  •  Israel's army is 'the fourth most powerful army in the world'.

[33]  The language the interviewee used to convey his views, such as 'genocidal', 'spiritual twins', 'masquerade', 'grave threat' and 'powerful' are subjective terms and value judgements; they cannot be categorised as statements of fact against which standards of accuracy can be assessed. We consider however that the complainants' concerns in this respect would have been addressed had the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to counter them or to provide balance. Another view would have enabled listeners to make up their own minds about these statements.

[34]  The complainants also alleged that two statements in the Counterpoint item were inaccurate:

  •  Israel secretly offered nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa.
  •  Israel is in the world's top four arms exporters.

[35]  The question is whether these were 'material points of fact' to which the accuracy standard applied. A 'fact' is verifiable, something that can be demonstrably proved to be right or wrong. In our view, these assertions made in the Counterpoint item cannot easily be verified or demonstrably proved to be right or wrong. This Authority is not in a position to determine whether Israel secretly offered nuclear weapons to South Africa, a matter which is hotly contested. Nor can we determine which measure of the world's top arms exporters is correct. These are not assertions which we can assess against standards of accuracy. However, we consider they would have been addressed if the broadcast adequately countered or balanced them.

[36] For these reasons, we decline to uphold the Standard 5 complaints.

Did the broadcast encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Jewish people as a section of the community?

[37]  The discrimination and denigration standard (Standard 7) protects against broadcasts which encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, 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.

[38]  Mr Martin considered that Israel was denigrated as 'apartheid, fascist and having Nazi characteristics and associations'. NZJC argued that '[b]y labelling [Israelis, Zionists and South African Jews] as collaborators with Nazis and apartheid, and equating their support for a Jewish homeland with those regimes, there can have been no other purpose than [discrimination and denigration]' especially at a time when, it contended, anti-Semitism is widespread and tensions are high. Ms Maasland said that the broadcast incited racial hatred. Mr Schanzer argued that the Counterpoint item was 'anti-Semitic', 'vitriolic' and 'used to spread hate and incite violence' against Jewish people. All of the complainants gave examples of recent anti-Semitism, both internationally and in New Zealand, in support of their arguments.

[39]  RNZ argued that as the interviewee's comments were specifically about 'Zionist zealots', this was a very small section of the overall Jewish population, so the standard did not apply. It also argued that '[e]ither party to an armed conflict... can expect trenchant criticism from time to time, but that does not mean to say that that criticism leads to discrimination and denigration of a particular section of our community, or a particular race'.

[40] The term 'denigration' has consistently been defined by the Authority as blackening the reputation of a class of people.9 'Discrimination' has been consistently defined as encouraging the different treatment of the members of a particular group, to their detriment.10 It is also well-established that in light of the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, a high level of invective is necessary for the Authority to conclude that a broadcast encourages denigration or discrimination in contravention of the standard.11

[41]  We acknowledge that many of the interviewee's comments were challenging and controversial. However, comments which are controversial, provocative or offensive to some are insufficient to breach the standard. We agree with the broadcaster that the interviewee's comments were not purported to be aimed at all Jewish people, but at a particular political and/or religious subgroup, whom he termed 'Zionist zealots'. We note in this respect that the interviewee did acknowledge and praise 'secular, progressive Jews' who had been involved in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.

[42]  Overall, we do not think the comments amounted to active encouragement of the different treatment of all Jewish people or 'blackened' their reputation as a section of our community. Accordingly, we decline to uphold the Standard 7 complaints, and we reiterate our view that the concerns raised by the complainants under this standard would have been mitigated had the item been balanced by a countering perspective.

Was any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the broadcast treated unfairly?

[43]  The fairness standard (Standard 6) states that broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to in a programme.

[44]  The complainants argued that 'Israel, Zionists and South African Jews were dealt with most unfairly and subjected to appalling slurs and allegations'.

[45]  The fairness standard applies only to specific individuals and organisations and therefore cannot be considered in relation to 'Israel, Zionists and South African Jews'. The complainants' concerns about 'slurs' against these groups are more appropriately addressed under Standard 7 above.

[46]  We therefore decline to uphold the Standard 6 complaints.

For the above reasons the Authority upholds the complaints that the broadcast by Radio New Zealand Ltd of Sunday Morning on 24 August 2014 breached Standard 4 of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice.

[47]  Having upheld the Standard 4 complaint, the Authority may make orders under sections 13 and 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. We invited submissions on orders from the broadcaster, Ms Maasland, Mr Martin and Others, NZJC and Mr Parker (the complainants who nominated Standard 4 in their complaints).

Submissions on the provisional decision and orders

[48]  RNZ submitted that its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict 'has been extensive and even-handed' and that the broadcast 'cannot be seen in isolation from the other broadcasts over this longstanding controversy [of the Israel-Palestine conflict]'. It considered the publication of the Authority's decision to be a sufficient penalty.

[49]  Mr Parker submitted that RNZ should broadcast an interview to provide some balance to the broadcast complained of, and recommended an appropriate individual RNZ could interview.

[50]  Ms Maasland submitted that the Authority's decision contained a misunderstanding about the 'religious and political makeup of the Jewish people' because most Jews are Zionist. She said that the interviewee was 'not making a derogatory slur against one tiny subgroup of an ethnicity but against the vast majority of this group', and the complaint under the discrimination and denigration standard should have been upheld. As to orders, Ms Maasland suggested that RNZ should be ordered to conduct 'a balancing interview' with the same individual recommended by Mr Parker. She also submitted that a 'full and public apology from the broadcaster to the Jewish community of New Zealand would also be expected and appropriate'.

[51]  The NZJC submitted that the Authority should order the broadcast of a statement during Sunday Morning explaining why the complaints were upheld and summarising the key points of the decision.

Authority's response to submissions and decision on orders

[52]  With reference to Ms Maasland's submissions on the provisional decision, regardless of whether her contention that most Jewish people are Zionist is correct, the interviewee's comments did not reach the high threshold necessary to find a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. It is within the broadcaster's right to freedom of expression to broadcast views which are critical of particular religious or political groups, and it is only when this expression crosses the line into hate speech or 'blackening' the reputation of those groups that it will breach the standard. For example, this Authority has previously upheld complaints under the discrimination and denigration standard when broadcasts advocated death for homosexuals,12 and accused members of a religious group of being child abusers and 'strange and weird beasties' that should not breed.13 While we again acknowledge that in this case the interviewee's remarks were controversial and highly critical, they did not amount to 'blackening' the reputations of all Jewish people or all Zionists. We therefore stand by our finding under the discrimination and denigration standard.

[53]  Having considered the parties' submissions on orders, we are of the view that in all the circumstances, and taking into account the importance of freedom of expression, publication of our decision is a sufficient remedy. Our decision clarifies our expectations of how the requirement for balance can be met when controversial issues of public interest are discussed, and RNZ has acknowledged the issues with how the interview was handled.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

 

 

Peter Radich

Chair

14 August 2015

 

Appendix

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

Shoshana Maasland's complaint

1      Shoshana Maasland's formal complaint – 12 September 2014

2      RNZ's response to the complaint – 15 October 2014

3      Ms Maasland's referral to the Authority – 13 November 2014

4      RNZ's response to the Authority – 4 December 2014

5      Ms Maasland's final comment – 21 January 2015

6      RNZ's final comment – 16 March 2015

7      RNZ's submissions on the provisional decision and orders – 7 July 2015

8      Ms Maasland's submissions on the provisional decision and orders – 13 July 2015

 

Gary Martin and Ors' complaint

1      Gary Martin and Ors' formal complaint – 11 September 2014

2      RNZ's response to the complaint – 14 October 2014

3      Mr Martin and Ors' referral to the Authority – 25 October 2014

4      RNZ's response to the Authority – 4 December 2014

 

New Zealand Jewish Council's complaint

1      New Zealand Jewish Council's formal complaint – 18 September 2014

2      RNZ's response to the complaint – 15 October 2014

3      NZJC's referral to the Authority – 12 November 2014

4      RNZ's response to the Authority – 4 December 2014

5      NZJC's final comment – 21 January 2015

6      RNZ's final comment – 16 March 2015

7      RNZ's submissions on the provisional decision and orders – 7 July 2015

8      NZJC's submissions on the provisional decision and orders – 14 July 2015

 

Richard Parker's complaint

1      Richard Parker's formal complaint – 3 September 2014

2      RNZ's response to complaint – 29 September 2014

3      Mr Parker's referral to the Authority – 20 October 2014

4      RNZ's response to the Authority – 4 December 2014

5      Mr Parker's final comment – 14 January 2015

6      RNZ's final comment – 16 March 2015

7      Mr Parker's submissions on the provisional decision and orders – 4 July 2015

8      RNZ's submissions on the provisional decision and orders – 7 July 2015

 

Alex Schanzer's complaint

1      Alex Schanzer's formal complaint – 24 August 2014

2      RNZ's response to complaint – 2 September 2014

3      Mr Schanzer's referral to the Authority – 18 September 2014

4      RNZ's response to the Authority – 4 December 2014

 


Commerce Commission and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2008-014 

Decision No. 2013-008

For further discussion of these concepts see Practice Note: Controversial Issues – Viewpoints (Balance) as a Broadcasting Standard in Television (Broadcasting Standards Authority, June 2010) and Practice Note: Controversial Issues – Viewpoints (Balance) as a Broadcasting Standard in Radio (Broadcasting Standards Authority, June 2009)

Powell and CanWest TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2005-125

See, for example, Dewe and TVWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2008-076

Bolot, Finlay and Gautier and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-008

See, for example, Bolot, Finlay and Gautier and Radio New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2013-008; Brooking and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2009-012

Bush and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2010-036

See, for example, Mental Health Commission and CanWest RadioWorks, Decision No. 2006-030

10 For example, Teoh and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2008-091

11 E.g. McCartain and Angus and The Radio Network, Decision No. 2002-152

12 Clayton and Triangle Television Ltd, Decision No. 2004-001

13 Simmons and 5 Others and CanWest RadioWorks Ltd, Decision No. 2004-193