Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 1. Holmes – 18 and 19 November 2003 – complainant director of Network Visas NZ Ltd – in dispute with 13 Romanian students – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – not company’s registered office – complainant given inadequate opportunity to respond – a number of factual inaccuracies – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair 2. Holmes – 18 November 2003 – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – after broadcast, complainant visited by landlord – complainant’s wife who operates beauty business from the address felt intimidated – alleged breach of privacy 3....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – episodes showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha – showed confrontation between an unidentifiable surfing instructor and lifeguards when lifeguards attempted to rescue students and instructor resisted – allegedly in breach of fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no surf school was named in 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only – Piha surf schools not treated unfairly – the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard – 12 March episode not unfair – 19 March episode captured events accurately and fairly and footage not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident – Mr Wallis was not identifiable – Mr Wallis’ perspective was clear from his comments that were included in the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on the findings of an investigation into the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau, and the Government’s proposed response to those findings – allegedly in breach of accuracy standardFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – this was a straightforward news report on the findings of an investigation into the legality of the agency’s actions – key finding was that the governing legislation was ambiguous and so arguably the agency did not breach it – reported that the Government’s proposed response was to amend the legislation to clarify ambiguity – item did not analyse or discuss the intentions of the governing legislation – reporter’s comments were accurate in context and would not have misled viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on art piece commissioned for Venice Biennale at cost of $500,000 in public money – interview with Peter Biggs of Creative New Zealand – allegedly unfair to Mr Biggs and misleading/inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – not unbalanced – Mr Biggs was able to present his view – not upheld Standard 5 – item did not suggest that braying toilet was the work to be exhibited – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – Mr Biggs not treated unfairly – as a seasoned media commentator he was able to get his point across – not upheld Standard 8 – not relevant – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-065:The Warehouse Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-065 PDF467. 48 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-169:Bracey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-169 PDF406. 94 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-055:John Carter MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-055 PDF359. 68 KB...

The Authority upheld a complaint from ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd (‘ANZ’) that an item on Seven Sharp was inaccurate and misleading. The item concerned a customer who had had a dispute with the bank and in December 2018 entered an ANZ branch and pretended he had a bomb. The Authority agreed that the item breached the accuracy standard as it created a misleading impression that the customer was paid a settlement as a result of his actions at the bank, when in fact the dispute had been settled and he had received a settlement payment months earlier. The Authority considered the question of whether the item undermined law and order to be borderline. The broadcaster took a light-hearted human interest approach to a serious story, and the item risked encouraging and promoting illegal activity....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that comments made by Mike Hosking during his ‘Mike’s Minute’ segment were misleading in breach of the accuracy standard. Mr Hosking made statements referring to death-rate statistics in Italy related to COVID-19, including that ‘99. 2% percent died with underlying health issues. In other words, the very things that were killing them anyway, at over 1,600 per day’. The Authority found the comments were misleading as the broadcaster conflated its own conclusions, drawn from a study into Italy’s COVID-19 figures, with the figure of 1,600 deaths per day, which was based on 2018 population data and ignored both cause of death and the notion of ‘excess mortality’. In this respect, the Authority emphasised the importance of data literacy among broadcasters and journalists, to ensure statistics are not misinterpreted or misrepresented....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about voluntary ‘DIY’ sperm donation in New Zealand, and in particular the complainant’s history of frequent sperm donations, breached broadcasting standards relating to privacy, fairness and accuracy. The Authority found there was a high level of public interest in discussing the risks associated with using DIY sperm donors, as well as CA’s extensive donation history in particular, which outweighed the potential harm to CA. The Authority concluded the programme did not disclose any private information about CA, and overall CA was treated fairly and was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to allegations made about him in the programme. Doorstepping CA (approaching him on the street with cameras rolling) was not unfair in the circumstances, and he willingly engaged in a lengthy interview with the reporter....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a story on Prime News, reporting on incorrect deductions that were made from a solo mother’s benefit, was inaccurate and resulted in Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) being treated unfairly. The featured mother was repaid $7,000 from WINZ after discovering that deductions had been made from her benefit in error, as she qualified for an exemption from a policy requiring her to identify the father of her child. The Authority considered that the item was a fair and accurate report on the issue. WINZ was the agency responsible for administering the woman’s benefit and for making the deductions under legislation. It was therefore reasonable for the broadcaster to refer to WINZ and to rely on comment from the Minister for Social Development in response....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 55/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KEITH AND KAY BURGESS of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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 about a talkback programme which discussed the protests and occupation of Parliament. The Authority found the programme was within audience expectations and did not contain language in breach of the good taste and decency standard. Callers were not treated unfairly, given the talkback environment. The remaining standards were not breached or did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Programme Information, Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that nine SOEs had paid bonuses to staff in 2008 – two SOEs had not responded to Official Information Act requests from the broadcaster – showed reporter at Ombudsman's office handing over a complaint about the lack of response – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfair pressure being placed on Office of the Ombudsman – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand documentary: “What’s Really in our Food” – discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme fairly presented significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to persons or organisations taking part or referred to in the programme – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled “What’s Really in our Food” was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 13 September 2007. The programme discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food....