Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-039 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R F ALLAN of Dunedin Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards about an interviewee saying, on Midday Report, Foreign Affairs Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters was ‘touching himself instead of doing a real job of caring for New Zealanders in difficulty’. Noting the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher for politicians and public figures, the Authority found the brief comment would not have left listeners with an unfairly negative impression of Peters. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview on The Weekend, which covered various aspects of racism in Canada, breached the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority found that the interviewee’s use of ‘goddamn’ as an expletive was unlikely to undermine or violate widely shared community norms. Further, the interviewee’s reference to the colonial treatment of Canada’s indigenous people did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority found that the comments did not apply to a recognised section of the community consistent with the grounds for discrimination listed in the Human Rights Act 1993. The Authority therefore found any restriction on the right to freedom of expression would be unjustified. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration...

An episode of Crowdscience broadcast on RNZ National discussed whether it was possible to engineer plants to make them edible (by removing toxic compounds) or more nutritious. In doing so, the broadcast investigated advances in genetic modification technology. The complainant stated the broadcast breached the accuracy and balance standards as it allegedly omitted relevant information, resulting in an exaggeration of the benefits identified in the broadcast of the advances mentioned. The Authority considered the complaint to be most appropriately addressed under the accuracy standard. It found the majority of the broadcast was materially accurate, and in any event, reasonable efforts were made to ensure accuracy as it was reasonable to rely on the experts interviewed. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview with an Israeli soldier on Morning Report breached several standards. The complainant alleged statements made by the interviewee were inaccurate, discriminated against Palestinians and Middle Eastern people, and were offensive and disturbing and unbalanced. The Authority found that the statements of the interviewee were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply and, if not, the broadcaster had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The Authority also found the comments were not directed at Palestinians and Middle Eastern people and were, in any event, serious comment, analysis or opinion to which the discrimination and denigration standard does not apply; the comments did not seriously violate community standards of taste and decency; and the interview did not breach the balance standard noting it was clearly signalled as presented from a particular perspective....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on Morning Report breached the discrimination and denigration, and accuracy standards. The report was about trans men and non-binary people missing out on notifications for cervical screenings, due to how gender and sex are recorded by health services. The Authority found that the discrimination and denigration standard was not breached as the terminology used was specifically chosen to be inclusionary rather than exclusionary, and the inaccuracies alleged by the complainant were immaterial to the broadcast as a whole. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration and Accuracy...

The Authority declined to determine two complaints regarding broadcasts by Radio New Zealand. The first complaint related to a segment on the Five O’Clock Report which featured an interview with National Party MP Mark Mitchell. The second complaint related to a segment on the Morning Report featuring an interview with then leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges. Robert Terry complained that the Five O’Clock Report segment contained biased coverage and that the Morning Report segment required balance.  The Authority found that the complaints did not relate to the content of the broadcast and were not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. Declined to Determine: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a Nine to Noon interview discussing the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill breached the balance and fairness standards. The item included interviews with current and former Children’s Commissioners, who were both generally opposed to the proposed legislation. As the item was clearly signalled as coming from a particular perspective, and the existence of other perspectives was indicated within the broadcast, the Authority found there was no need to include other perspectives within the item itself. In the circumstances it was unlikely listeners would have been left uninformed or unaware there were other perspectives on the issue. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

SummaryA segment on National Radio’s Nine to Noon which featured a review of a book entitled "Four to Score" was broadcast on 1 October 1998. The broadcast had included the host of the programme referring to a character in the book whose surname was "Kuntz". Mr Lord complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character’s surname was pronounced by the host in a manner which was deliberately offensive and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the sensibilities of her audience. In his view, the host should have used the softer Germanic pronunciation instead of what he described as the most distasteful pronunciation possible. RNZ advised that as the word was used once only in the context of a literary review, it had not been used gratuitously....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an item on RNZ National’s 1pm News bulletin lacked balance. The item reported on economist Dr Eric Crampton’s support for the National Party’s policy to retract Labour’s extension to the bright-line test for people selling investment properties. The complainant alleged the item lacked balance as RNZ had interviewed Dr Crampton and another expert earlier in the day on the matter, but only Dr Crampton’s views were re-broadcast as part of the 1pm news update. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the item clearly signalled it was focussed on Dr Crampton’s views and did not purport to be an in-depth examination of Labour’s decision to extend the bright-line test. Further, given other wide-ranging coverage on the issue, listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views. Not Upheld: Balance...

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 1989Radio New Zealand National News – item about a university study which alleged flaws in the data used by the government to increase the ACC levy for motorcyclists – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint frivolous, trivial and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A brief news item, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National at 10am on Wednesday 19 May 2010, reported on a university study which claimed that there were flaws in the data on which the Government had based its recent ACC levy increase for motorcyclists....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an interview with Waikato University senior lecturer in psychology Dr Jaimie Veale was inaccurate and unbalanced. While the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance, the selection of a transgender woman to the New Zealand Olympic team, it was clearly signalled as coming from a particular perspective. It focused on one aspect of the issue, the potentially stigmatising effect of the debate on trans people, and was part of a range of media coverage on the issue. The Authority also found there was nothing inaccurate or misleading in the way Dr Veale was introduced. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – item about violence encountered by staff working with dementia patients – contained interviews with a nurse working in a dementia ward, a representative from the Nurses Organisation and a spokesperson from the Ministry of Health – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – broadcaster presented the required significant viewpoints – perspective of care providers not vital to discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment complained about was not a statement of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people and organisations taking part and referred to treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about an interview on Morning Report with ‘[a]n Iranian woman, living in New Zealand … shocked by the scale of attacks from Israel on Iran’. The complainant alleged the broadcast ‘presented a one-sided narrative critical of Israel’, and omitted significant viewpoints — namely, those of ‘pro-Israel Iranians’ — and vital context. The complainant also alleged the broadcast contained material inaccuracies, by indicating Israel targeted residential buildings and misled listeners regarding the Iranian regime and Israel’s intentions. The Authority found the broadcast was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The audience could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item briefly described a ruling of the International Court of Justice in relation to Israel’s actions in Rafah, and an academic’s perspective on the potential reaction of the international community. The complainant argued other perspectives and information should have been included, the description of the ruling was inaccurate, and the various statements, omissions and inaccuracies contributed to breaches of multiple standards. The Authority found the brief item did not constitute a ‘discussion’, so the balance standard did not apply. With regard to accuracy, the Authority found the description of the ruling was reasonable and the broadcaster had exercised reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. It also found the academic’s reference to ‘attacking’ by Israel constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and was materially accurate....