Search Rapua

Summary There was controversy over the government’s proposal to enact legislation dealing with crimes of home invasion, according to news reports and an extended news item on Radio New Zealand Ltd’s Morning Report programme broadcast on 23 June 1999 at 7. 00am, 7. 30am, 7. 40am and 9. 00am. The former Justice Minister was said to be willing to admit that the bill had "some flaws". Hon Tony Ryall, Minister of Justice, complained that the reports were inaccurate when they reported that Sir Douglas Graham, the former Minister of Justice, "had admitted the bill was flawed". Mr Ryall advised that he had spoken to Sir Douglas, who confirmed that he had not made the remarks attributed to him. RNZ acknowledged that Sir Douglas had not used the word "flawed". However, it argued, the phrase was used accurately to reflect Sir Douglas’s view that the bill had limitations....

ComplaintNational Radio – Saturday Morning programme – host referred to rock band as "miserable buggers" – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – consideration of context required as specified in Principle 1 Principle 1 – language did not refer to anal intercourse or bestiality – acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Saturday Morning programme broadcast on National Radio on 28 July 2001, the host described a rock band as the most "miserable buggers" he had ever seen. [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "bugger" was contrary to good taste and decency. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, RNZ noted that the Authority's research showed that almost three-quarters of those interviewed considered the word "bugger" to be acceptable....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon (x2), Today in Parliament, Saturday Morning with Kim Hill, Morning Report – each used the term “front bums” – allegedly offensive – the word “bloody” used once – allegedly offensiveFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “front bums” – novel phrase – mildly vulgar – “bloody” – mild expletive – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Hon John Tamihere MP, a cabinet minister at the time, used the phrase “front bums” to describe women in a magazine interview. The phrase was later used on National Radio on Nine to Noon broadcast on 12 and 14 April 2005, on Today in Parliament at 6. 35pm on 12 April, and on Saturday Morning with Kim Hill at 9. 05am on 16 April....

ComplaintMorning Report – audio of a woman giving birth – preceded item about maternity services – gratuitous, distressing and socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 1 and Guideline 1a; Principle 5 and Guideline 5c & Principle 7 and Guideline 7d – not socially irresponsible – not gratuitous – no warning necessary – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Morning Report which discussed the lack of maternity services in Queenstown was broadcast on National Radio on Monday 13 January 2003. The item was introduced with a brief sound effect of a woman giving birth. [2] James Cone complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the audio was gratuitous, distressing and socially irresponsible. [3] In response, RNZ said that the audio was neither socially irresponsible, nor was it intended to cause alarm....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on The Panel featured an interview with the Prime Minister’s partner and regular guest on the programme, Clarke Gayford. The interview focused on the Prime Minister’s recent pregnancy announcement and parenthood. At the beginning of the interview, Mr Gayford was introduced as the ‘Prime Minister’s partner’. The complainant submitted that the broadcast was inaccurate and misleading because Mr Gayford should have been introduced as the Prime Minister’s ‘publicist’. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it was frivolous and trivial and did not reach the threshold for being considered under the accuracy standard. Declined to Determine: Accuracy Introduction[1] An item on The Panel featured an interview with the Prime Minister’s partner and regular guest on the programme, Clarke Gayford....

A number of news bulletins on Morning Report reported findings from fact-checking group First Draft about political spending on Facebook advertising in the lead-up to the 2020 General Election and referendums. Two complaints alleged the bulletins inaccurately reported pro-cannabis group Make It Legal NZ had misleading ads removed from Facebook. The Authority did not uphold the complaints, finding although the morning bulletins were misleading and the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of those reports, a later news bulletin during Midday Report was sufficient to clarify and correct the misleading impression created earlier. The Authority also found Make It Legal was not treated unfairly, as it is a lobby group that could reasonably expect a level of public scrutiny, and it was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the morning news items.   Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-046 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by POWER FOR OUR FUTURE Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-081 Decision No: 1998-082 Dated the 30th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by A R MORETON of Auckland and ROBERT MENZIES of Picton RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Peewee’s Sister – children’s short story about a boy who was being bullied for his school lunch – story contained two parts involving scuffles between characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and social responsibility Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – theme of a bully being beaten by his own tactics of physical force not inappropriate for a children’s story – broadcaster sufficiently considered the story’s effect on child listeners – not upheld Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Principle 7 Principle 2 (law and order) – subsumed into consideration of Principle 7 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintBookmarks – book reading – offensive language; unsuitable for children FindingsPrinciple 1 – potential breach averted by words being beeped – no language or concepts which would offend – not targeted at children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An extract from the book "They who do not Grieve" by Sia Figiel was read by her on the Bookmarks programme broadcast on National Radio on 2 December 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm. Part of the extract was masked by an audible beep. Douglas Bacon complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the extract read was vulgar and that he could hardly believe the "obscenities" it contained. He said he took into account that it was broadcast during the early evening when younger people could be listening....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989All Night Programme – reviewed book about events during World War II – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – review did not minimise the horror of the Holocaust or the events depicted in the novel – book presented as a historical fictional novel that was a blend of fact and fiction – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During the All Night Programme, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on 9 May 2012, a guest reviewed a book called “Himmler’s brain is called Heydrich”, written by Laurent Binet. The book is in the genre of historical novel where a fictional account is written around an historical event....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A media commentator on Nine to Noon made comments about the retirement of the editor of the Southland Times. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the editor was ‘erroneously described… in glowing terms’. The complainant’s concerns about the way the editor was portrayed are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion, not broadcasting standards. The item clearly comprised personal opinion and did not require the presentation of other views. Declined to determine: Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] During a discussion with a media commentator on Nine to Noon, comments were made about the retirement of the editor of the Southland Times. The programme was broadcast on 17 December 2013 on Radio New Zealand National....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A participant on 'The Panel' during Afternoons with Jim Mora made comments about men wolf whistling at women, such as 'bring back the wolf whistle', 'a whistle is not harassment', 'a lot of women are the ones that haven't been whistled at, that have got a problem with it' and 'we are the peacocks, you guys are the ones that look at us'. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast condoned and encouraged sexual harassment of women, as the panellist's comments were clearly her own opinion and did not reach the level of offensiveness required to find a breach of the relevant standards....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint was introduced by the newsreader saying, ‘The Māori Education Trust has had to sell its only assets – its farms – putting at risk the grants it is required to make to Māori students’. The item went on to discuss the financial history of the Trust. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the introduction was inaccurate in that the sale of the farms had actually improved the financial position of the Trust. The financial ‘risk’ alleged by the broadcast is not a fact able to be objectively determined, and the Trust was able to put forward its position in the item, so listeners would not have been misled....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report reported on and discussed the introduction of ACT MP David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill 2017 to Parliament. The broadcast featured excerpts from speeches made during the first reading of the Bill, comments from RNZ’s political commentator and an interview with Mr Seymour. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that statements made by Mr Seymour that ‘[assisted dying is] becoming normal around the world’ were inaccurate. The Authority emphasised the importance of freedom of political expression and the high threshold required to justify limiting that expression. It found that the statement complained about was clearly distinguishable as Mr Seymour’s analysis and opinion, rather than a statement of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. Additionally, alternative viewpoints on the Bill were presented during the item so listeners would not have been misled....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report featured an interview between presenter Kim Hill and a seismologist from GNS Science, following a 4. 3-magnitude earthquake the previous night. At the beginning of the interview, during a discussion of the seismologist’s initial reaction to the earthquake, Ms Hill said, ‘WTF’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘WTF’ in this broadcast was unacceptable and a breach of the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that, taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the nature of the programme, audience expectations of RNZ and Kim Hill, and the fact that the offensive word implied was not explicitly stated in the broadcast, the use of ‘WTF’ did not threaten community norms of taste and decency, or justify restricting the right to freedom of expression....

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive. The Authority upheld a complaint that the use of the word ‘fuck’ in an episode of the programme Eating Fried Chicken in the Shower breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. While the Authority recognised the value and nature of the programme, it was not preceded by any offensive language warning which the Authority considered necessary as the language used was outside audience expectations for the programme, and the programme was aired at 7:30pm, at a time when children may be listening. Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests No Order...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that an individual on The Panel should not have been on the programme due to ‘corrupt practices’ and therefore the broadcast was inaccurate. The Authority found that the arguments raised in the complaint had no direct correlation to the standard raised. Declined to Determine: Accuracy The broadcast[1] A segment on The Panel featured the host and two panellists, one of whom the complainant submitted should not have been involved in the broadcast. [2] The item was broadcast on 26 September 2018 on RNZ National. The complaint[3] Allan Golden complained one of the panellists should not have been on The Panel due to the ‘highly corrupt’ practices which Mr Golden alleged the person’s organisation was engaged in....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Saturday Morning, in which host Kim Hill interviewed physician journalist and COVID-19 expert Dr Norman Swan. The complaint was that Dr Swan’s comments distinguishing between Long-Haul COVID-19 and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome normalised stigmatisation of the latter and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, but found the comments did not reach the high threshold of harm that justifies restricting freedom of expression under the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...