Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at the government’s surplus and the likelihood of tax cuts – presenter made a comment regarding possible tax cuts – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – presenter’s statement appeared to take a position – statement was balanced by comments from the political reporter – issue of tax cuts had a long history and was well publicised – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 4 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 October 2007, discussed the cause and effect of the Labour-led Government’s $8. 6 billion surplus and the likelihood of tax cuts before the next election....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Newshub promo that stated ‘over 3 million Kiwis [get their news from Newshub]’ breached the accuracy standard. The complaint was that the promo did not indicate the reference to ‘over 3 million Kiwis’ was a ‘reach’ number (ie a statistical estimate on total audience numbers), and that the omission of information about the source and research methodology used to arrive at the 3-million figure resulted in the promo being misleading. The Authority found the use of the statistic in the promo was unlikely to mislead viewers or significantly affect their understanding of the promo as a whole, taking into account the nature of the promo as a piece of station branding or marketing, rather than a news or current affairs item....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from two complainants, a Christian organisation and its director, about an episode of Sunday which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. The director, ‘X’, was filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon X’s interest in seclusion and that, on its face, this broadcast breached their privacy. However, the Authority found that the high level of public interest, both in the programme as a whole and in the hidden camera footage, justified the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs broadcast an item entitled 'What Lies Beneath', which reported on the recent conviction of Northland farmer Allan Titford and examined the cultural and legal impact he had on race relations in New Zealand. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the item was biased, inaccurate and unfair. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's conviction, the item was materially accurate and subject to editorial discretion, and no one was denigrated or treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Native Affairs broadcast an item entitled 'What Lies Beneath', which reported on the recent conviction of Northland farmer Allan Titford and examined the cultural and legal impact that he had on race relations in New Zealand....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Nine to Noon host interviewed Carmel Fisher, the founder and managing director of Fisher Funds Management Ltd, about her background and attitudes to business. At the end of the interview, she asked her about recent court action over a family will. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that a comment made by Ms Fisher about her role in the proceedings was inaccurate. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the programme was unfair. The Authority did not make any order. Upheld by Majority: AccuracyNot Upheld: FairnessNo OrderIntroduction[1] On 14 March 2013 on Radio New Zealand National Nine to Noon, the host interviewed Carmel Fisher. Ms Fisher is the founder and managing director of Fisher Funds Management Ltd....

A news segment on The AM Show about name suppression included a clip from an interview with former Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson QC, which had been broadcast live on air earlier in the programme. The clip from the interview played during the news item related to Mr Finlayson’s comments about bullying allegations in Parliament, rather than his views on name suppression laws. The broadcaster acknowledged this clip placement was in error. A complaint was made that this error was significantly inaccurate, as it would have misled viewers as to Mr Finlayson’s views regarding name suppression laws. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding that while the broadcaster made an error in playing the clip during that particular news segment, it was not significantly misleading in the context of the item as a whole. The Authority acknowledged the technical mistake and did not uphold the complaint. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 63/95 Dated the 20th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GARY MABEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-008 Decision No: 1996-009 Decision No: 1996-010 Dated the 8th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PITA COLE of Wellington and ANTHONY SMITH of Palmerston North and BRENT PROCTOR of Bluff Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-101 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M R BRIDER of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-056 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by G P COSTELLO of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a 1 News item covering the resignation of David Clark as Minister of Health misrepresented the complainant’s views in breach of the accuracy standard. The complainant was shown in a series of vox-pops with members of the public in Dunedin (Mr Clark’s electorate). He complained his comments were taken out of context and shown in response to a different question than the one he was asked. The Authority acknowledged the item did not make clear the particular question the vox-pop participants were responding to, which had the effect of misrepresenting the complainant’s views. However taking the item as a whole, the general audience were unlikely to be significantly misinformed at a level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an episode of The Detail, where the host provided a correction to a comment made in a pre-recorded interview immediately after the comment. The Authority considered this sufficiently addressed the inaccuracy in the circumstances, and the way in which it was presented to the audience was an editorial decision open to the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on Newshub Live at 6pm about the current war in Ukraine. The complaint was in relation to the map used in the segment, which showed Ukraine, Russia and other nearby countries, and depicted Crimea as a part of Russia. The Authority acknowledged that the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war in Ukraine is a highly sensitive topic and found the map did contain inaccuracies. However, the Authority found the segment was materially accurate, as the map would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole. In the circumstances the Authority determined that regulatory intervention was not required. The programme information, law and order, and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Programme Information, Law and Order, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that reported a third marine heatwave in four years in Auckland and Northland. It described the causes of the heatwave in terms of subtropical winds and global warming, and its consequences in terms of sea level rises and ocean acidification, and included comments from local experts. The complaint was that the broadcast misled viewers to believe the higher ocean temperatures in Northland and Auckland were due principally to climate change and the warming effects were global (when actually the heatwave was driven by a natural climate event, occurring locally). The Authority found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, including reliance on authoritative experts, and the broadcast was unlikely to mislead viewers. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold – no order AppealConsent order – appropriateness of no order(s) being imposed remitted back to the Authority Findings on ReconsiderationNo order appropriate This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player....

ComplaintSunday – Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) – results of Women’s Health Initiative reported (WHI) – complainant participated in item as representative of WISDOM – item included minimal scientific facts – potentially frightening – confusing – unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – purpose of item to pose questions about use of HRT – no uphold Standard 5 – while further information would have been useful, material presented not inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – complainant’s views advanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The potential health risks of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) were examined during an item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 August 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Green Party was calling for an urgent safety review of non-stick cookware – claimed the US Environmental Protection Agency had found possible links between non-stick cookware, cancer and birth defects – veterinarian stated that non-stick pans could be deadly to household birds – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item contained misleading and inaccurate statements – would have unnecessarily alarmed viewers – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any person or organisation taking part in the programme – not upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $927. 50 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....