Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that quotes from the book ‘Everything is F*cked’ by Mark Manson, broadcast as part of a review of that book, breached the good taste and decency, programme information and violence standards. The Authority noted that the right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in their own words, provided this does not cause undue harm. In this case, the nature of the item was clearly signalled by the introduction, and the quotes were contextualised by the reviewer who was using them as examples to emphasise and support his criticism of the book. This enabled listeners to make an informed decision about their listening and that of children in their care....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint from environmental group Friends of the Earth (NZ) about an interview between Saturday Morning host Kim Hill and former Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman was not upheld. Ms Hill interviewed Sir Peter about his time as Chief Science Advisor and a wide range of issues, including how societies respond to scientific research, the role of science in government, activism within the scientific community and the criminal justice system. During the interview, Sir Peter made comments about the safety and history of genetic modification. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were inaccurate or that the interview was unbalanced or unfair. The Authority found Sir Peter’s comments were not statements of fact, noting they were clearly established as being from Sir Peter’s perspective throughout the interview....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a British comedy writer and producer. Following a discussion about causing offence to audiences, the interviewee recalled his time as a radio host and a complaint he received from the Bishop of Oxford about a crucifixion joke. He could not remember the joke, and the presenter invited listeners to ‘. . . send in a series of very funny jokes about the crucifixion to see if we can approximate it’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s remark was against common decency and offensive to Christians. The remark was not intended to trivialise or make light of the act of crucifixion or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and did not reach the threshold necessary to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, the Christian community....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – commentator (Hana O’Regan) compared the impact of views of the leader of the National Party (Dr Brash) to those of Hitler – allegedly offensive, irresponsible, unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings: Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – another perspective on extensively debated controversial issue – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – focus of comparison on process, not policy – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – limited factual comparison accurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Commentator Hana O’Regan was interviewed by the presenter (Linda Clark) on National Radio’s Nine to Noon between 9. 54 and 10. 00am on 11 February 2004....

ComplaintSaturday Morning – Interview with David Lane of the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards – SPCS – interviewer harangued Mr Lane – unfair FindingsPrinciple 5 – interview abrasive and querulous and subject matter subject to abrupt change – however interviewee is spokesperson for activist group and allowed to express opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Mr David Lane of the Society for the Protection of Community Standards (SPCS) was interviewed on Saturday Morning, at about 8. 15am on 13 July 2002, about contentious films. [2] Diane Ranger complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interviewer shouted and sneered at Mr Lane, spoke in an insulting manner and prevented Mr Lane from putting his view. [3] In response, RNZ described the interview as robust, generally good humoured, and challenging....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Morning Report covered a story on kauri swamp logs that were allegedly being illegally exported to China. It reported that the company Oravida was one of the ‘kauri wholesalers’ involved. RNZ upheld a complaint from Oravida’s director that the broadcast was unfair as comment was not sought from Oravida. RNZ had removed the audio and written pieces that referred to Oravida and its director from its website, and two days later in a subsequent broadcast briefly reported Oravida’s position that it had never been involved in illegal trading. The Authority upheld the complaint that the action taken by RNZ in upholding the fairness complaint was insufficient and that the broadcast was also inaccurate. The Authority did not make any order noting that a full correction and apology was broadcast after the referral of the matter to this Authority....

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 that action taken was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a statement in First Up that Israel had ‘always been adamant’ there would never be a Palestinian state. The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision that the statement was materially inaccurate. However, it found the broadcaster complied with the accuracy standard requirement to correct material errors within a reasonable period, given its prompt broadcast of a correction. It also found the correction was not insufficient by virtue of having omitted additional context sought by the complainant. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Balance...

SummaryThe subject of liable parent contributions was discussed on Nine to Noon on 3 August1993 and unemployment on Morning Report on 13 August 1993. Mr Fudakowski complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the dissenting view given in thediscussion about liable parents was unsourced and therefore was neither balanced norimpartial. With respect to the second item, he complained that comments about theinevitability of long-term unemployment were deeply offensive and lacked balance andobjectivity. In response, RNZ denied that the news items encouraged discrimination against anygroup, or that they were so lacking in balance that they were in breach of broadcastingstandards. Pointing out that the items contained expressions of opinion about matters ofpublic interest, RNZ explained that it could find no justification for the contention that thereporting of those statements imposed an obligation on the broadcaster to undertake anin-depth investigation into the subjects discussed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the 'three strikes' legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaintFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-1465 PDF165. 64 KBComplaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with legal commentator about the Ministry of Justice’s review of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 – referred to women when talking about the victims and men when discussing the abusers – allegedly unbalancedFindings Principle 4 (balance) – not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item broadcast during Nine to Noon on Radio New Zealand National on 27 February 2008 featured an interview with a legal commentator, Catriona McLennan. Ms McLennan discussed a review, published by the Ministry of Justice, of implementation aspects of New Zealand’s Domestic Violence Act 1995....

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...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Insight – first of a three-part series on climate change – presenter said it was an attempt to balance the avalanche of reports that dominate the media – presented viewpoints of those who challenged the “perceived wisdom” that climate change was real and caused by humans – allegedly unbalanced Findings Principle 4 (balance) – programme clearly approached topic from a particular perspective – did not purport to be a balanced overview of the climate change debate – substantial amount of media coverage has been devoted to climate change – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Radio New Zealand National’s Insight programme reported that a United Nations organisation called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had released its latest report....

The Authority has not upheld complaints about a press conference by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and comments by Professor Michael Baker regarding restrictions for persons who do not have a COVID-19 vaccination. It found the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply to either broadcast and the balance and law and order complaints were not upheld in respect of the second complaint. The interview with Professor Baker was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from his perspective and there has been widespread discussion in other media about whether restrictions on people that are unvaccinated are justified. The Authority found listeners were in a position to arrive at informed and reasoned opinions regarding this issue. It also found the broadcast did not encourage any illegal or antisocial activity. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about a segment on Nine to Noon because the complaint did not explicitly or implicitly identify any broadcasting standards breached by the broadcast. Declined Jurisdiction...

An item on RNZ’s Midday Report reported ‘Scientists warn polar bears may become extinct by the end of the century because of climate change. ’ The complainant alleged climate change was not threatening polar bears as reported in the item. The Authority found the statements in the item were clearly framed as predictions, and attributed as being the scientists’ view. Therefore, they were analysis and opinion (rather than statements of fact) and the accuracy standard did not apply. Reporting on the predicted future impact of declining sea ice on polar bear survival, as shown in studies, did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue, so the balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Programme Information...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview between Checkpoint’s John Campbell and former United States television personality, Matt Lauer, who at the time was involved in controversy regarding public access to his New Zealand property. The complainant alleged that Mr Campbell unfairly emphasised the New Zealand Overseas Investment Office’s (OIO) reassessment of Mr Lauer under its ‘good character test’, and later made false allegations about who had initially raised this topic. The Authority found that the circumstances of the OIO’s assessment were directly relevant to the discussion and that this was raised again later in the interview by Mr Lauer himself. Mr Lauer was given ample opportunity during the interview to present his perspective on his treatment by New Zealand media and the issue of foreign land ownership and public access....

ComplaintMorning Report – British newspaper reviews – left wing bias – unbalancedFindingsNo issues of broadcasting standards raised – decline to determine under s. 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During Morning Report broadcast daily on weekdays between 6. 00–9. 00am on National Radio, some selected overseas newspapers are reviewed. During the period 4 to 28 July 2000, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Times were reviewed. Mr G C C Meikle complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that its coverage of the British dailies lacked balance. He noted that considerably more reference had been given to The Guardian than to either The Daily Telegraph or The Times. In his view there was no justification for the bias he believed was demonstrated in favour of The Guardian....