Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio New Zealand News – item reported that pedestrian had been hit by a bus in Wellington – newsreader stated, “St John Ambulance says a woman in her mid-forties was hit by a bus on the corner of Hunter and Featherston streets… A spokesperson says the woman sustained moderate injuries and was transferred to Wellington hospital…” – reference to St John Ambulance allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reference to St John Ambulance was not material to the focus of the item and would not have misled listeners in any material respect – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – Wellington Free Ambulance did not take part and was not referred to in the broadcast so listeners would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of it as an organisation – in any event the reference to St John Ambulance was…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – panel discussed National Party’s welfare reform policy – panellist expressed his view that there was a “welfare industry” which had an interest in ensuring beneficiaries remained on benefits – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – New Zealand welfare system including welfare reform amounted to a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints in the programme – issue ongoing so listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of alternative viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state that welfare was not a “legal” entitlement – panellist’s statements were his personal comment and opinion and therefore exempt under guideline 5a – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Introduction [1] Afternoons with Jim Mora, broadcast on Radio New Zealand…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-013:Jensen and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-013 PDF279. 29 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported on the final stages of a court case in Auckland, known as the ‘Dome Valley’ kidnapping, in which a young woman was kidnapped, beaten, sexually violated and left to die by a group of her former friends. The reporter outlined the events of the kidnapping and the item featured segments of the victim giving evidence (with her voice disguised) via audio-visual link from another room in the closed court. The reporter and the victim outlined her assault and injuries in some detail. No audience advisory was broadcast....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Morning Report and a summary bulletin that discussed complaints about Kāinga Ora tenants forcing people to leave their homes. Kāinga Ora complained it was not given an opportunity to comment on one of two situations discussed during the broadcast, which led to the item being unbalanced, and was unfair to the agency. Noting the issue, and numerous similar cases, had been discussed over a number of months in RNZ reporting, the Authority found it was not required in the interests of either balance or fairness for Kāinga Ora to be given a specific opportunity to comment in relation to that particular case. In any event, the Housing Minister’s response, which referred to Kāinga Ora treating complaints seriously and its updated processes for dealing with complaints, was adequate to address the issues raised. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Saturday Morning featured a segment in which presenter Kim Hill interviewed former MP and spokesperson for lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, Dr Don Brash, about the use of te reo Māori in New Zealand, specifically in RNZ broadcasting, without translation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Dr Brash challenging and critical questions, Dr Brash had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view, and listeners would not have been left misinformed with regard to Dr Brash’s position. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Dr Brash’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Dr Brash being treated unfairly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with the President of Catholics for Choice (CFC). He spoke about CFC’s position, and his own views, on contraception, marriage equality and abortion, contrasting these views with the Catholic Church’s stance on these topics. The Authority did not uphold a complaint made by Right to Life that a representative of the Catholic Church should have been given the opportunity to respond to the ‘allegations’ made by the CFC President. The item was introduced and presented from the narrow perspective of CFC, which did not represent the views of all Catholics or of the Church hierarchy, and this was made clear during the interview....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item broadcast during RNZ News reported on cycling campaigner Peter Walker’s new book, following an interview between RNZ and Mr Walker earlier that day. The item reported that helmets ‘do little to improve safety’ and are ‘stopping people from taking up cycling’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the omission of any reference to Mr Walker’s position on mandatory helmet legislation was misleading as Mr Walker is not ‘against helmets’ but rather against mandatory helmet laws. The Authority found that, while the short news item truncated a sophisticated topic and did not refer to Mr Walker’s views on mandatory helmet legislation, the ideas communicated in the news item were not materially different to the key themes communicated by Mr Walker during his earlier interview broadcast on RNZ....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a comment made by business commentator, Rod Oram, during a segment on Nine to Noon. The Authority found that Mr Oram’s view as to the effectiveness of a former Chair of a seed business was an opinion that is not subject to the accuracy standard. Not Upheld: Accuracy The item[1] A segment on Nine to Noon featured business commentator Rod Oram discussing the sale of a seed business. During the discussion Mr Oram said one of the former Chairs had been ‘highly effective’ in their previous roles. [2] The item was broadcast on 7 August 2018 on RNZ National. The complaint[3] Allan Golden complained that Mr Oram’s statement about the effectiveness of the former Chair was ‘not true’ as Mr Golden believed they had not been ‘highly effective’....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – item reported on “An Anglican Minister who has been suspended after he removed children from a youth camp… to protect them from a man he believed was a sexual predator” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not have a sufficient foundation for broadcasting serious allegations – broadcaster did not provide any details about corroborating evidence to support allegations – church was provided with a fair opportunity to comment but the item failed to adequately present the church’s response – church and Bishop treated unfairly – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Authority not in a position to determine whether impression of alleged offending was misleading – matters more appropriately addressed as issues of fairness – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of…...

*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. ]Morning Report looked at the Taranaki Regional Council’s ‘landfarming’ policy and contained an interview with a Council representative. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast was misleading, unfair and unbalanced. The report was an accurate and fair reflection of what the representative told the reporter in the interview, and it is legitimate and important in our free and democratic society to challenge and criticise public bodies on matters of strong public interest. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on Morning Report reported on the Taranaki Regional Council’s (TRC) ‘landfarming’ policy. The reporter interviewed TRC’s Director of Environment Quality, Gary Bedford, and his comments formed the basis of the story....

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: 1996-143 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP DUNLOP of Pokeno Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-003 Dated the 29th day of January 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by TONY SIMPSON of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Nine to Noon featured an interview with the CEO of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The Authority declined jurisdiction to accept and consider a complaint that this interview did not address issues of corruption within the Fund, finding the complaint raised matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and the broadcaster was therefore correct to not accept it as a valid formal complaint. Declined JurisdictionIntroduction[1] An item on Nine to Noon featured an interview with the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Fund). [2] Allan Golden complained to Radio New Zealand that the segment ‘praised the earnings performance’ of the Fund with no justification....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The featured speaker of the 2015 Reeves Memorial Lecture, broadcast by Radio New Zealand, was a prominent former New Zealand politician. The Authority declined to determine a complaint alleging that the choice of speaker was ‘improper’ because she was ‘very corrupt’, on the basis that it was vexatious. The complainant continues to refer complaints of a similar nature to the Authority which do not warrant determination. Declined to Determine: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] The featured speaker of the 2015 Reeves Memorial Lecture, broadcast by Radio New Zealand, was a prominent former New Zealand politician. [2] Allan Golden complained that the ‘adulation’ of the speaker contained in the programme was ‘improper’ because she was ‘very corrupt’. He alleged this breached the controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On 29 July 2017 the complainant raised with the Authority a complaint he had made to RNZ which he considered was outstanding, regarding the use of te reo Māori greetings and closings by presenters on RNZ National. The broadcaster had not accepted the complaint as a formal complaint under the Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook. The Authority therefore did not have jurisdiction to accept the complainant’s referral. The Authority further noted that, even if the complaint referral had been validly made, it would have found the content of the complaint to be trivial and vexatious, and would have declined to determine it....