Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 8/95 Decision No: 9/95 Dated the 23rd day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

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....

*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....

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. ] 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....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Morning Report featured an interview with a Social Policy Advisor at the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), who discussed CAB’s experience assisting the public with income support applications to Work & Income New Zealand (WINZ). The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that this interview was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate. The Authority found that because of the nature of the item – which comprised a brief interview with one individual, who approached a widely reported issue from a clearly identified perspective – audiences would not have expected to hear MSD’s response to the comments made....

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....

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...

ComplaintMorning Report – item about industrial accidents in timber mill – interviewer questioned union representative aggressively while appearing cordial with owner’s representative – unfair Complaint News Item – later news item included owner’s view only – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4; Principle 5 and Guidelines 5b and 5c – interviewer’s approach to each spokesperson similar – no uphold News item at 7. 30am balanced by item within period of current interest at 8. 00am – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A recent industrial accident at a timber mill, and the company’s accident record, were dealt with in an item during Morning Report broadcast on National Radio at about 7. 25am on 17 April 2003. The item included interviews with representatives from the union and the company. The discussion was referred to in an item during the news bulletin broadcast at 7. 30am....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – item reported on the Australian Government's proposal to legislate for the mandatory blocking of particular websites – contained comment from a representative of the internet civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance to New Zealand – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee qualified his statements – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast during Radio New Zealand National's Morning Report programme on Tuesday 28 October 2008 reported on the Australian Government’s plan to legislate for the blocking of websites it deemed to be illegal or inappropriate....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on Morning Report discussing the possible boycott of the Tuia – Encounters 250 commemorations was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. The Authority found the item was balanced through the presentation of alternative perspectives and the existence of significant media coverage within the period of current interest. The Authority also found the broadcast did not contain any material inaccuracy with respect to Captain Cook’s first arrival in New Zealand. Finally, the Authority found the fairness standard did not apply as the complainant did not identify any person or organisation who took part in or was referred to in the broadcast who was treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-186 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Morning Report reported on a New Zealand Defence Force exercise in Hawkes Bay which involved visiting local schools. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and in the nature of ‘propaganda’. This was a brief news report about the army exercise and the school visits, and the fact it reflected positively on the NZDF did not automatically trigger the requirement to present alternative viewpoints. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues Introduction [1] An item on Morning Report reported on a New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) exercise and was introduced as follows: War has broken out in Hawkes Bay, but the bullets being fired are blanks. Several hundred defence force personnel are conducting war games in different parts of the region as part of an intentional training exercise....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 52/95 Dated the 22nd day of June 1995 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 L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-027:Noble and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-027 PDF163. 37 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about an interview between Kim Hill and Rt Hon Winston Peters regarding the relationship between New Zealand First and the Labour Party was not upheld. The complainant submitted the interview was unbalanced because Kim Hill’s interviewing of Mr Peters was ‘biased, rude and condescending’. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Mr Peters challenging and critical questions, Mr Peters had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Mr Peter’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Mr Peters being treated unfairly....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was a breach of broadcasting standards for an expert interviewee to suggest the anti-mask/anti-vaccination movement was behind bomb threats made to several New Zealand schools. The Authority found that while the issue of who was responsible constituted a controversial issue of public importance, the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, so the balance standard was not breached. It also found that anti-mask/anti-vaccination advocates are not groups to which the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on Morning Report discussed a press release by a named investment banking firm. The Authority declined jurisdiction to accept and consider a complaint that the programme ought to have disclosed certain alleged conduct by that firm. The Authority found the broadcaster was correct to not accept this as a valid formal complaint, as the complaint was based on the complainant’s own opinion of the firm rather than raising issues of broadcasting standards within the broadcast. Declined Jurisdiction  Introduction[1] A segment on Morning Report discussed a press release from a named investment banking firm. [2] Allan Golden complained to the broadcaster RNZ that the segment breached the accuracy standard by omitting aspects of the firm’s alleged conduct and history that ought to have been disclosed to listeners....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interviewee’s language, broadcast during an item on Morning Report on 10 December 2018, was violent and inappropriate. The item reported on the declining memberships of sports clubs in New Zealand and featured an interview with the Club Captain of a tennis club. The interviewee commented that the tennis courts were so empty ‘you could… fire a machine gun and hit no one. ’ 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 comment made by the interviewee was brief, was not overly graphic or targeted at a particular individual or group, and was not intended to be taken literally....