Search Rapua

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 contained two items about the Government’s proposal for a specific criminal charge for family violence. A number of family violence experts were interviewed, and the introduction to one of the items stated that ‘14 women, six men and 10 children’ are killed by family violence annually. The Authority upheld a complaint that this statistic was inaccurate because the broadcaster’s source was significantly outdated, and it was part of the introduction which framed the discussion. However, the Authority did not uphold the aspect of the accuracy complaint that the items were misleading because they implied that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and women almost always victims of family violence....

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...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an interview with Hon Paul Goldsmith on Morning Report breached the balance and fairness standards. As the complaint did not specify a particular ‘controversial issue of public importance’ the balance standard did not apply. The Authority highlighted the value of robust political discourse and the vital role of media in encouraging and engaging in such discourse. Considering the nature of the programme and contextual factors, including the significant public interest in the interview and Mr Goldsmith’s experience in dealing with the media, the Authority did not find Mr Dann’s interview approach to be unfair. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a question during a social welfare debate on Morning Report suggesting an ACT Party policy ‘smacks of eugenics’. In the context it was not outside audience expectations for Morning Report and political debate. It would not have caused widespread offence. The complaint did not raise any issues under the balance standard. The question was comment and analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Ms McKee and the ACT Party were treated fairly in the context of the debate. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a direct privacy complaint about an interview on Morning Report following the stabbing of an Auckland dairy worker. The interviewee (the local Neighbourhood Support Coordinator) speculated about who the victim could be and gave information about the living arrangements of the family who operated the dairy. The Authority did not find any breach of the privacy standard in relation to the victim’s family, on the basis the information disclosed did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. It noted in any event that the identity of the victim was officially confirmed soon after, and reporting on the circumstances surrounding the stabbing carried high public interest. Not Upheld: Privacy...

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 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 made the following directions in respect of the Waikato District Health Board’s referral: declined to accept the two affidavits submitted as part of the WDHB’s complaint invited the WDHB to provide alternative evidence to support its complaint referral, with reference to the formats outlined at paragraph [8] by 24 January 2022 asked RNZ to identify information it wishes to rely on by 24 January 2022, and the WDHB to provide confirmation as to whether such information is in dispute or can be accepted as correct within a further 10 working days invited any further comment from the parties regarding the management of these issues by 24 January 2022....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an interview on Morning Report with Martin Sellner, the leader of an Austrian far-right group, was unbalanced or misleading. Interviewer Corin Dann questioned Mr Sellner on the donation he had received from the alleged Mosque attacker and Mr Sellner’s choice to give some of the money to Victim Support, a charity assisting victims of the Mosque attacks. In response to other questions, Mr Sellner also provided some comment regarding his ideologies. During the interview, Mr Dann questioned whether Mr Sellner had a role in radicalising the alleged attacker and whether Mr Sellner felt any responsibility for the attacks. The Authority found that the balance standard was not breached considering the clear approach of the broadcast, focussing on the perspective of Mr Sellner, the introduction prior to the interview and Mr Dann’s questioning of Mr Sellner....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item covering the Electricity Authority’s new trading rule breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The item was materially accurate, given its focus was the introduction of a new trading rule, motivated in part to address an undesirable trading situation (associated with Meridian Energy’s actions). It was not unfair to Meridian, as the programme was not inaccurate in how it presented Meridian’s contribution to the ‘revamped’ rule. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint several broadcasts on RNZ National concerning missiles that crossed into Poland breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the reports were unbalanced, inaccurate as to the ownership of the missiles and other matters, discriminated against Russo and Slavic people, disturbing as they raised the prospect of nuclear war in which children would be harmed, and unfair to children. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the balance standard as the broadcaster had presented significant viewpoints on the issue and had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy in the context of a developing story. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview on Morning Report following the US Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade (regarding rights to abortion) breached the balance standard. The complainant alleged the broadcast was unbalanced as both interviewees chosen were from the ‘pro-choice’ perspective, and the ‘pro-life’ point of view was not mentioned, nor a ‘pro-life’ interviewee included. The Authority found that while abortion access and related laws constitute a controversial issue of public importance, the full broadcast (in particular the news report immediately prior covering reactions in the US) included viewpoints from both sides of the issue. Further, the nature of the issue is such that the public can reasonably be expected to be aware of the major perspectives in the debate through ongoing media coverage. Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement by RNZ’s Morning Report host, ‘Māori have a clearly proven proprietary right over water… the Supreme Court has acknowledged that’, during an interview regarding the National Party’s Local Water Done Well policy. The complaint alleged there was no case in which the Supreme Court had made such a statement. The Authority found the statement was not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context of the broader discussion: most audience members would not have interpreted the statement in a strictly legal sense or appreciated the technical legal distinctions drawn in the complaint. The key point being made by the host was that National would need to ensure Māori interests in water were adequately dealt with – or risk facing further litigation – since its policy removed co-governance as a feature. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 National Radio – interview with Pauline Hanson on Morning Report – interviewer asked if she was considering political life again and mentioned that ACT party in New Zealand was looking for a new leader – comments allegedly unfair to ACT leaders and voters Findings Principle 5 (fairness) – comment did not attribute politics of Pauline Hanson to ACT party or members – issue of fairness did not arise – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Former Australian politician Pauline Hanson was interviewed on Morning Report on 7 May 2004, shortly before the 7 o’clock news. The interview took place in the context of Ms Hanson’s trip to New Zealand for the purpose of promoting a cleaning franchise. During the interview the interviewer asked Ms Hanson: Any thoughts about entering the political arena again?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – lead story on speculation that recently announced tax cuts in the Australian Federal budget could attract an increased number of migrants from New Zealand – allegedly unbalanced in that it omitted to mention New Zealand’s low tax rate by OECD standardsFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – controversial issue was whether the cut in tax rates would lead to increased migration – significant points of view presented about that issue – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The possible attraction to New Zealanders of the recently announced tax cuts in the Australian Federal budget was discussed on Morning Report on 11 May 2006, immediately following the 7. 00am news. The item referred to spokespeople from recruitment agencies who said migration to Australia could increase unless there were tax reductions in the forthcoming New Zealand budget....

SummaryIn an item on Morning Report broadcast on 12 August at 7. 28am, the presenter suggested to an investment advisor, when he was interviewed about the possible sale of the Wellington Airport, that potential buyers would "have to be blind" to think the sale was not a political minefield. Mr Mosen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that he, as a blind person, found the comment highly offensive, as it equated blindness with stupidity. He maintained that it was distressing and unhelpful to have ignorant and inaccurate perceptions about blindness reflected by a current affairs presenter. He sought an apology. RNZ defended the use of the phrase which it asserted was used in a colloquial sense and also a metaphorical sense, and maintained that the meaning of the figurative use was perfectly clear....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – item on changing population statistics of New Zealand – introduced with reference to the possibility of New Zealand becoming a republic – allegedly unbalancedFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – topic of republicanism not the controversial issue of public importance covered by the item – balance on that issue not required – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 26 April 2005 at 7. 20am on National Radio, an item on Morning Report covered changing population statistics in New Zealand, noting the expectation of continuing increases in Asian, Māori and Pacific Island communities. The introduction to the item included the statement “some believe this will fuel arguments to ditch the Queen as the head of State”....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report featured an interview between presenter Kim Hill and a seismologist from GNS Science, following a 4. 3-magnitude earthquake the previous night. At the beginning of the interview, during a discussion of the seismologist’s initial reaction to the earthquake, Ms Hill said, ‘WTF’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘WTF’ in this broadcast was unacceptable and a breach of the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that, taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the nature of the programme, audience expectations of RNZ and Kim Hill, and the fact that the offensive word implied was not explicitly stated in the broadcast, the use of ‘WTF’ did not threaten community norms of taste and decency, or justify restricting the right to freedom of expression....