Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Darpan – report on first Hindu conference in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, programme information and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – report was not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard relates to an individual – no individual specified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in the item – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Council spokesperson explained what the conference was about – viewers were made aware that the conference had a number of themes – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – report was a fair and accurate reflection of the event – not upheld Standard 7 (programme…...

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 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – promos for the programme contained footage not used in the actual broadcast – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – person alleged to have been treated unfairly did not take part in and was not referred to in the item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about ongoing Family Court proceedings concerning custody of a child – father interviewed anonymously and gave details of evidence and proceedings – brief visuals of baby – mother believed that as baby was identifiable, she was also identifiable – personal details broadcast about her – some allegedly inaccurate – child shown without mother’s permission – alleged breach of privacy of mother and baby – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – referral outside statutory time limit – s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether surprise witness at the retrial had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to not include viewpoints of the defence and David Bain – not upheld – Daryl Young was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – it was an authorial documentary approached from a particular perspective as envisaged by guideline 4b…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-089:Credo Society Inc and Access Community Radio Inc - 1993-089 PDF447. 43 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Worldwatch was introduced with the headline: ‘A provocative act by America in the South China Sea’. The item later went on to explain, ‘China’s issued a terse statement aimed at the United States after an American destroyer sailed close to an artificial island in the disputed area of the South China Sea. China said the move was illegal and threatened its sovereignty’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the introduction to the item was misleading and unfair because it implied that the US was responsible for the escalation of tensions in the South China Sea when in fact China was acting provocatively. Reasonable listeners hearing the item as a whole would have understood the context in which the word ‘provocative’ was used and would not have been misled....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Peter Popoff Ministries is a religious programme hosted by controversial televangelist, Peter Popoff. This programme featured Popoff and his wife preaching and allegedly healing audience members, as well as testimonies from various attendees about miracles and financial rewards received from God after they bought Popoff’s ‘Miracle Spring Water’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme was ‘fraudulent’, as it took advantage of viewers who may be misled by the programme into losing money. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s genuine and well intentioned concerns. However, it found that the accuracy standard did not apply to religious programming, such as Peter Popoff’s Ministries, and programme selection and scheduling decisions fell to the responsible broadcaster to determine. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction[1] Peter Popoff Ministries is a religious programme hosted by controversial televangelist, Peter Popoff....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the terms ‘synthetic cannabis’ and ‘synthetic cannabinoids’ in a Newshub segment that reported on these products, their availability and the fact they have been responsible for a large number of deaths in New Zealand recently breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that while these products do not contain actual cannabis, the terms ‘synthetic cannabis’ and ‘synthetic cannabinoids’ are commonly used to describe them, both by agencies like the Ministry for Health and the NZ Drug Foundation, and also by the media. Therefore, the Authority did not consider it likely viewers would be significantly misinformed by their use in this broadcast. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken by Television New Zealand Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a statement in a 1News bulletin that ‘Israel would withdraw from Gaza’ as part of a peace proposal (when the proposal only contemplated withdrawal from densely populated areas). The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision that the statement was materially inaccurate. However, it found TVNZ had complied with the accuracy standard requirement to correct material errors within a reasonable period by posting correct information on its website, and any potential harm caused by the broadcast was not of a level requiring any further action. Other standards alleged to have been breached by the broadcast were found either not to apply or not to have been breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on 6 July 2025 reporting ‘Israel has continued attacks in the occupied Gaza Strip amid steps towards a possible ceasefire. At least 35 Palestinians have been killed in the latest strikes, according to the Hamas-run Civil Defence Agency…’ The complaint was that this story ‘further compounded’ TVNZ’s earlier ‘unbalanced and inaccurate reporting’, including by referring to the ‘Hamas-run Civil Defence Agency’ (leading viewers to question the veracity of reported Palestinian deaths) and by stating ‘[t]he war began when Hamas attacked Israel’ (showing footage of 7 October 2023), which repeated ‘Israeli narrative’ and ‘decontextualised’ the history of the conflict and Israeli attacks prior to that date. The Authority found viewers were unlikely to be materially misled or left uninformed by this item....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 99/95 Decision No: 100/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by M B of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

 The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News segment that discussed allegations and criticisms about the operations of the Tongan Health Society. The segment featured interviews with former employees and Board members who criticised the management of the Society, its CEO Dr Glenn Doherty, and called for an independent review of the Society. The Authority found that the requirements of the fairness and balance standards were met as TVNZ had taken reasonable steps to seek, and then adequately presented, the Society’s point of view on the issues raised in the programme. The Authority found the disclosure of the CEO’s request for a bonus and extracts from correspondence between the CEO and Board relating to this amounted to a breach of privacy, but determined that the defence of public interest applied on this occasion. Not Upheld: Balance Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-016 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HUGH BARR of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1/95 Dated the 24th day of January 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DENNIS FRANK of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld four complaints that interviews on Q+A with Israeli and Palestinian representatives breached multiple broadcasting standards. On 21 April 2024, Jack Tame from Q+A interviewed Ran Yaakoby, the Israeli Ambassador to New Zealand. On 5 May 2024, Q+A interviewed Dr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi, head of the Palestinian Delegation to New Zealand. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims that: statements made by Yaakoby and Tame were inaccurate; Tame did not push back hard enough on Yaakoby; the interviews did not provide balance; the 21 April interview was unfair to Hamas, offensive, and discriminatory. The Authority did not uphold complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis: the relevant points concerned opinion to which the standard does not apply; reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy; any harm was outweighed by freedom of expression; or the points were not materially inaccurate....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – examined differences in breast cancer treatment in Australia and New Zealand, and the funding of a drug called Herceptin – interviewed an Australian and a New Zealander with similar cancer and compared their prognoses – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster failed to present significant viewpoints on the controversial issue within the programme, and within the period of current interest – due to the presentation of the programme and the nature of the issue, the period of current interest limited to a short time after the broadcast – alternative perspectives were not presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements would have misled viewers – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....