Search Rapua

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 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. ]On 18 March 2017, RNZ reported on allegations made by the Board of Trustees at Salisbury School, a Nelson school for girls with complex learning needs, that the Ministry of Education (Ministry) had actively discouraged parents from enrolling children at the school so that it could be closed. On 31 March and 6 April 2017, RNZ broadcast a series of items about an alleged lack of funding, resources and support for Northland teachers struggling to cope with violent and disruptive children. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the Ministry that RNZ’s coverage of these issues was unfair and unbalanced....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about advice provided to a listener on Your Money with Mary Holm, because the complaint did not explicitly or implicitly identify any broadcasting standards breached by the broadcast. Declined Jurisdiction The item[1] On Your Money with Mary Holm, commentator, Mary Holm, provided advice to a listener, regarding the listener’s son's investment in KiwiSaver on the minimum wage. [2] The item was broadcast on 8 October 2018 on RNZ National. The complaint[3] Allan Golden complained that this advice was ‘improper’ for a young man on the minimum wage, saying: ‘propagating the idea that virtually everyone should be investing externally is most improper and should not be broadcast’....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item which included a quote from Liz Cheney calling Donald Trump’s claims that he had won the 2020 US Election ‘dangerous lies’. The complainant was concerned about RNZ referring to some politicians as liars but not others. The Authority found the content of the complaint did not relate to the substance of the broadcast, and was not capable of being properly determined by a complaints procedure. Declined to Determine: Programme Information, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The Authority has not upheld complaints an interview on Saturday Morning between Kim Hill and Dr Kathleen Stock, a gender critical philosopher, breached broadcasting standards, including the discrimination and denigration, balance and accuracy standards. The broadcast discussed Dr Stock’s perspective on gender identity and her experiences resulting from voicing her perspective, having resigned from her position following a student campaign that accused her of transphobia. The Authority acknowledged the potential harm of the interview, but ultimately found the importance of freedom of expression outweighed any harm caused. The broadcast was clearly signalled as presenting Dr Stock’s perspective, to which she was entitled, and throughout the interview Hill challenged Dr Stock’s views, leaving the audience with a more balanced impression on the issue....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Morning Report with Sue Grey, lawyer for the parents of a baby whose urgent heart surgery had been delayed due to the parents’ concerns regarding blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19. The essence of the complaints was that the host did not listen to Grey, constantly interrupted her, did not allow her to answer the questions, and pushed his personal views. The Authority found the interview did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny that could reasonably be expected in an interview with Grey on this subject, noting in particular that Grey was making claims contrary to public health advice, and was able to put forward key points in the course of the eight-minute interview. Therefore the broadcast overall did not result in any unfairness to Grey....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an episode of The Detail, where the host provided a correction to a comment made in a pre-recorded interview immediately after the comment. The Authority considered this sufficiently addressed the inaccuracy in the circumstances, and the way in which it was presented to the audience was an editorial decision open to the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an interview on Saturday Morning, where the host misgendered and ‘deadnamed’ the interviewee, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the host’s words, it found the words were directed at the interviewee as an individual, not a section of society as required by the standard. The Authority, in implying the fairness standard, did not consider listeners would have been left with a negative impression of the interviewee. The potential harm therefore did not reach the threshold justifying regulatory intervention.    Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 65 /94 Dated the 15th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on RNZ National’s Morning Report on 14 January 2022 breached the discrimination and denigration standard by voicing-over comments made by international students. The complainant alleged this implied that foreign students and immigrants are not easily understood due to their accents, thereby reinforcing xenophobia. The Authority found ‘international students’ and ‘immigrants’ did not constitute relevant sections of the community for the purposes of the standard. In any event, the broadcast would not have reached the threshold required for finding a breach. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Morning Report item stating ‘Protesters occupying Parliament grounds have been calling for reinforcements…’ breached the law and order standard. The Authority found in the context the item did not actively encourage or promote illegal behaviour. In any event, the public interest in the item meant the right to freedom of expression outweighed any potential harm. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion about taxi safety – referred to taxi drivers as “cabbies” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “cabbies” not pejorative – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster not required to present views of non-Taxi Federation companies – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – did not imply that non-Taxi Federation members were at the “bottom end” of the industry – not unfair – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – programme was ambiguous as to whether Taxi Federation represented all companies – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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…...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under the accuracy standard, about an episode of Our Changing World. The Authority considered the complaint, about the use of the word ‘English’ instead of ‘British’ trivial. Declined to Determine: Accuracy (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial)...

The Authority has accepted jurisdiction to consider a complaint under the privacy standard made by the Privacy Commissioner. The Authority found the Privacy Commissioner had standing to make the complaint under the Broadcasting Act 1989. It also found it is capable of considering the complaint on its merits and would not be subject to undue influence or bias as a result of the complainant’s status. Finally, it agreed the complaint raised some matters outside the scope of the complaints process and, in accordance with its usual procedures, such matters would not be considered. Accepted Jurisdiction...

A segment on Sunday Morning interviewed Dr Maxime Taquet to discuss his research on long COVID. The complaint was the segment breached the accuracy, balance and discrimination and denigration standards as it (amongst other reasons) portrayed long COVID as a psychological rather than a neurological disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the broadcast did not imply long COVID was a psychological disorder. It also did not breach the balance or discrimination and denigration standards as the broadcast clearly signalled it was presenting Dr Taquet’s views and did not discriminate against, or denigrate, people affected with long COVID. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

An episode of The Detail explored the Productivity Commission’s recommendation the Government review Aotearoa New Zealand’s regulatory framework around genetically modified organisms to ensure they remain fit for purpose. The complainant stated the broadcast was unbalanced and misleading as it, among other reasons, overemphasised the benefits of GMOs, did not critique the Commission, was inaccurate in several respects, and suggested issues with GMOs were largely ethical rather than scientific. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the broadcast was balanced, particularly as it was focusing on a single issue. It also found the broadcast was materially accurate and unlikely to mislead listeners. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an interview on Midday Report with a transgender activist, who discussed whether Immigration New Zealand should allow Posie Parker to enter New Zealand, breached the accuracy, balance and fairness standards. The complainant considered: the host’s description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans activist,’ along with other comments made by the interviewee, were inaccurate; the host was biased; the interview was unbalanced as it did not include the perspective of a women’s rights activist; and that it was unfair to Parker and her supporters. The Authority did not uphold the concerns, finding the broadcast was materially accurate, was clearly approaching the topic from a particular perspective, and did not result in any unfairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...