Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Nine to Noon featured an interview with the CEO of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The Authority declined jurisdiction to accept and consider a complaint that this interview did not address issues of corruption within the Fund, finding the complaint raised matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and the broadcaster was therefore correct to not accept it as a valid formal complaint. Declined JurisdictionIntroduction[1] An item on Nine to Noon featured an interview with the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Fund). [2] Allan Golden complained to Radio New Zealand that the segment ‘praised the earnings performance’ of the Fund with no justification....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by a political panellist on Nine to Noon, including that National Party public meetings were ‘full of angry racists saying angry racist things’ breached broadcasting standards. While the Authority acknowledged the statement was inflammatory, it found the statements were hyperbole and political comment and opinion, and they were challenged immediately by another panellist – meaning listeners were unlikely to be misled, and given sufficient viewpoints to form their own opinions. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief Nine to Noon segment discussing the latest developments in a site investigation at the former Ivon Watkins-Dow (Dow) chemical plant in Paritūtū, New Plymouth lacked balance and accuracy. Noting the nature of the programme, the perspectives included in it and other media, and that the period of current interest for issues at Paritūtū was ongoing, the Authority found reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints. The Authority also found none of the matters alleged to be inaccurate or misleading were materially inaccurate or misleading in the context. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion between commentators about New Zealand’s change in government – one commentator recalled overhearing a conversation at Auckland Airport in which a man told some tourists that the former Prime Minister was a lesbian – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were intended to be humorous and ironic – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme not a news, current affairs or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments related to an individual, not to a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint regarding a broadcast discussing Fonterra’s write-down of assets and the Reserve Bank’s announcement of an official cash rate cut. The Authority considered that the complaint was trivial, frivolous and vexatious and raised matters which were not covered in the broadcast and amounted to the complainant’s personal preference rather than issues of broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance standard about an interview on Nine to Noon. The complaint was that the interview about the subject of the truancy service system in schools only canvassed a single perspective. Considering the interview was signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, the perspectives presented were criticism of the status quo, and the period of current interest is still ongoing, it is unlikely listeners would be left misinformed by the broadcast or unaware there were other perspectives on the issues discussed. Not Upheld: Balance...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Radio – Nine to Noon – interview with a grandmother campaigning against prescription of the drug Ritalin – grandmother not medically qualified made allegedly inaccurate statements – item allegedly unbalanced and unfair as it failed to present expert medical opinionFindings Principle 4 (balance) – personal perspective – balanced mainstream view – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – not relevant – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – mixture of fact and opinion – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Authority unable to establish number of people being prescribed Ritalin in New Zealand – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that a broadcast covering the name change of an investment and advisory group from ‘First NZ Capital’ to ‘Jarden’ was inaccurate finding that the complaint was frivolous, trivial and vexatious. The Authority ordered the complainant to pay a reasonable portion of costs to the broadcaster to compensate for the time and resources spent in dealing with the complaint. Declined to Determine: Accuracy Order: Section 16(2)(a) – $200 costs to the broadcaster...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an item on Nine to Noon breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, due to a presenter using the expression ‘effing annoying’ when describing a character in a book review. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine this complaint.   Declined to Determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content...

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....

ComplaintNine to Noon – listeners’ comments broadcast about Hormone Replacement Therapy – some suggested soy products as an alternative to HRT – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4 – observation in passing about range of views made known to the broadcaster did not support the use of soy – no uphold CommentComplainant need not have heard/viewed programme complained about before making complaint – complaint must comply with s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act – broadcaster must have process in place to deal with formal complaints This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) was one of the matters discussed on Nine to Noon, presented by Linda Clark and broadcast on National Radio between 9. 00am and noon on 17 July 2002....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast on Radio New Zealand National’s Nine to Noon marking one year since the 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. The broadcast included two interviews conducted by host Kathryn Ryan - one with BBC Middle East editor Sebastian Usher, and the other with Sally Stevenson, an emergency coordinator with Médecins Sans Frontières. The Authority found listeners were alerted to alternative significant viewpoints during Usher’s interview, and Stevenson’s interview was clearly signalled as being from Stevenson’s perspective. Additionally, the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage and, while noting the balance standard is not directed at bias, no material which indicated bias against Israel was identified....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – media commentator referred to article in Investigate magazine which raised questions about the sexuality of a public figure – commentator said the named public figure was not a “poof” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated homosexuals FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principle 7 – denigration of homosexuals was essence of the complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Media commentator Phil Wallington reviewed the media on National Radio’s Nine to Noon each week during 2006. On 19 September 2006, he was highly critical of the manner in which the magazine Investigate had raised the issue of the sexuality of a public figure....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A news bulletin on Nine to Noon reported that former Act Party leader John Banks had been ordered to stand trial over ‘allegations of electoral fraud’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate, because he was actually standing trial over allegations of ‘filing a false electoral return’. The label ‘electoral fraud’ was used as shorthand to characterise the accusations against Mr Banks, and was also adopted by numerous other news media. The story and the nature of the allegations were widely publicised so viewers would not have been misled. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] A news bulletin on Nine to Noon reported that former Act Party leader John Banks had been ordered to stand trial over ‘allegations of electoral fraud’. The programme was broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on 17 October 2013....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the reading of an adaptation of the novel My Name Was Judas by author C. K. Stead was offensive to Christians in breach of the good taste and decency, and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority did not consider that the broadcast’s content was likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards and it did not reach the high threshold necessary for finding that it encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community. The Authority also found that the balance standard did not apply as the programme was not a news, current affairs or factual programme. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance....