Search Rapua

Complaint20/20 – statement broadcast about a complaint upheld by the Authority – inaccurate – misleading – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – statement broadcast accurate – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair – complainant did not take part nor referred to – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] TV3 was ordered to broadcast a statement about a complaint that had been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The statement was broadcast on TV3 at the end of a 20/20 programme at approximately 8. 30pm on 30 March 2003. [2] Mark Scott complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the statement broadcast was inaccurate, misleading and unfair. As the producer of the item to which the statement related, he argued that the statement was incorrect because he had evidence to the contrary....

Complaint3 News – item about New Zealand First party convention – Winston Peters described as having "once again played the race card" – inaccurate – unjust and unfair – item lacked balance and impartiality FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate to state Mr Peters played the "race card" – no uphold Standard G3 – item acknowledged right of Mr Peters and his supporters to express their opinions – no uphold Standard G4 – Mr Peters not dealt with unjustly or unfairly – no uphold Standard G6 – item not lacking in balance, impartiality or fairness – no uphold Standard G7 – no deceptive programming practice – decline to determine Standard G13 – no uphold Standard G14 – no uphold Standard G19 – editing did not distort views – no uphold Standard G20 – views fairly presented – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA 990 – Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon – caller allegedly referred to the complainant and his wife – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 3 (privacy), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – recording of broadcast in Hindi and translation incomplete – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] At approximately 7. 30pm on APNA 990 on 26 August 2010, the radio host spoke to a caller during a Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon. The caller commented to the effect that his neighbours had “run away”. Complaint[2] Moh Lateef made a formal complaint to APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the caller was referring to him and his wife, as they lived on the same street as the caller....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – viewers’ poll questioning whether the New Zealand Government should have apologised to India for Paul Henry’s controversial remarks – included edited footage from a debate on an Indian television network – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – editing of the Indian programme was not misleading – excerpt included comments both for and against Mr Henry – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 8 October 2010, included a poll asking viewers whether they agreed with the New Zealand Government’s apology over Breakfast presenter Paul Henry’s recent controversial remarks....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live, 3 News and The Jono Project – items included hidden camera footage of reporters wearing burqas and speaking to the complainant outside her shop – complainant refused reporters entry to her shop and questioned their style of dress – items commented on complainant’s behaviour – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – footage obtained through misrepresentation and complainant was not informed of the nature of her participation – footage not justified by the public interest – complainant should have been given an opportunity to respond to the negative portrayal of her in the programmes – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – broadcasts did not disclose any private facts – filming occurred in a public place and complainant not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – 3 News and Campbell Live…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance. The Authority upheld the complaint from the tenant that the programme breached her privacy and that she had been treated unfairly. The broadcaster could not demonstrate that the complainant had given consent to appear in the programme, and she had made her objections known to both the broadcaster and the production company before this third repeat broadcast, which occurred four years after the filming took place. Upheld: Fairness, PrivacyNot Upheld: Accuracy, Children’s InterestsOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a 1 News Coming Up teaser, presenter Simon Dallow referred to an upcoming item on 1 News, saying: ‘Plus a warning for mums to be; research showing C-section babies face long-term health issues. ’ The full item reported on research findings from the University of Edinburgh that babies born through caesarean section were ‘far more likely to suffer from obesity and asthma’, but went on to explain that it was not the caesarean section which caused the health problems, as these could be due to the mother’s health, and further research is needed. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the teaser was sensationalist and misleading, in breach of the accuracy standard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints regarding an episode of Shortland Street were not upheld. In the episode a new character appointed CEO of the Shortland Street hospital commented, ‘Puffed up, privileged Pakeha men drunk on control, terrified of change… we are the future, Esther, not them,’ referring to the hospital’s management. Complaints were made that this statement was sexist, racist and offensive to white men. The Authority reviewed the programme and relevant contextual factors, including established expectations of Shortland Street as a long-running, fictional soap opera/drama, and concluded the character’s statement did not breach broadcasting standards. It found upholding the complaints in this context would unreasonably limit the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness The broadcast[1] A Shortland Street episode featured a new CEO, Te Rongopai, starting at Shortland Street hospital....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on Prime Minister Bill English’s experience during Waitangi Day, including a phone call with the President of the United States of America, President Trump. During an introduction to the item, the newsreader referred to President Trump’s ‘anti-Muslim travel ban’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the newsreader’s statement was inaccurate and unbalanced. The focus of this item was not the precise terms of Executive Order 13679 or its implications, but rather Bill English’s experiences on his first Waitangi Day as Prime Minister, during which his phone discussion with President Trump took place. In this context, the newsreader’s shorthand description of the Order was acceptable. The Authority pointed out, however, that broadcasters should take care when adopting commonly used shorthand terms, as this may not always be sufficient to meet standards of accuracy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two items on Newshub reported on incidents of violence which occurred in the city of Hebron, in the West Bank, and in Jerusalem. The Authority did not uphold complaints from the Wellington Palestine Group that the items were inaccurate and misleading. The reporters’ references to Hebron in the West Bank, and to Jerusalem, were correct and there was no implication during either item that these events occurred in Israel, as alleged. The lack of an explicit reference to ‘Occupied Territories’ or to ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’ did not result in the items as a whole being inaccurate or misleading. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] An item on Newshub reported on the shooting of a wounded Palestinian man by an Israeli soldier in the city of Hebron in the West Bank....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Keep Calm and Carry On – reality series about host’s experience of new motherhood contained brief mention of ‘The Unfortunate Experiment’ – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – programme focused on Jaquie Brown and her experience of new motherhood – reference to ‘The Unfortunate Experiment’ was brief and peripheral to the focus of the programme – programme did not contain a “discussion” of that issue so was not required to present alternative viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements summarised the findings of the Cartwright Inquiry into ‘The Unfortunate Experiment’ and were not material to the focus of the programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not specify who she considered had been treated unfairly – no person or organisation taking part or referred to in the programme…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

ComplaintNational Radio – Insight – edited highlights of a panel discussion on republicanism and the Treaty of Waitangi – unbalanced – lack of editorial integrity FindingsPrinciple 4 – not a controversial issue – no uphold Principle 6 – not news or current affairs – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Insight programme broadcast on National Radio on 3 June 2002, comprised edited highlights of a panel discussion on republicanism and the Treaty of Waitangi. [2] Dr Noel Cox, on behalf of The Monarchist League of New Zealand Inc, complained to Radio New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced, its timing inappropriate, and it lacked editorial integrity....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Hon Tariana Turia called a “confused bag of lard” by host – also accused of being a bully and “all mouth” – allegedly offensive, encouraged denigration, unbalanced and partialFindings Principle 1 and Guideline 1a (good taste and decency) – comments not indecent – questionable taste – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – not applicable to editorial comment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – editorial comment not required to be impartial – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments focused on individual, not group – not upheldObservation Broadcast comments raised issue of fairness, and broadcaster acknowledged probable unfairness. However, neither complainant raised the fairness standard either explicitly or implicitly in original complaints. Authority unable to assess a complaint on standard not raised in original complaints....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on the experience and fears of one woman dealing with her mentally-ill ex-husband – woman described her ex-husband as dangerous – dealt with failures of the mental health system – allegedly in breach of accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – woman gave her opinions about her husband, did not make statements of fact about people with bipolar disorder in general – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – did not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, people with bipolar disorder or mental illness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA 990 – allegedly broadcast statement that eight Fijian nationals had died in Christchurch earthquake – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – not news, current affairs or factual programming – clearly caller’s opinion rather than statement of fact – Apna broadcast a follow-up statement – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – caller’s comment was opinion – listeners should have been aware that Apna is a small-scale community radio station and could have sought up-to-date information about the earthquake from larger media outlets – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint– item allegedly contained comments from Radio New Zealand’s economics reporter – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – broadcaster unable to locate any segment which matches the comments identified by the complainant – Authority therefore unable to assess broadcasting standards against those comments – Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Allan Golden made a formal complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) about a news item broadcast between 4pm and 5. 30pm on 11 July 2012....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reference to the “Labour Government” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme informationFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – “Labour-led” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld – majority considers “Labour” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld Standard 5 (fairness) – no issue of fairness arises – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast an item on Close Up on 21 July 2005 at 7pm. During the course of a political interview, the presenter used the term “Labour Government” to refer to the Government. Complaint [2] Vivienne Shepherd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the term “Labour Government” was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme information. She noted that the government was made up of a Labour-Progressive Coalition....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...