Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview between Magic Talk host Ryan Bridges and World Health Organisation Special Envoy Dr David Nabarro. The complainant argued the interview contained inaccurate information about Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 and mask wearing, and inaccurately suggested Dr Nabarro advocated New Zealand adopt Sweden’s approach. The Authority found the relevant statements were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. It also concluded they were not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context of the interview. The standards of good taste and decency, balance and fairness either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority upheld aspects of seven complaints under the privacy and fairness standards, regarding broadcasts by RNZ which included material stolen from the Waikato District Health Board and released by hackers on the dark web. The broadcasts were about a child under the care of Oranga Tamariki, who was effectively ‘living’ in a WDHB hospital because Oranga Tamariki was unable to find them a placement. The Authority found the child was identifiable and their privacy was breached on a segment on Morning Report. While there was a legitimate public interest in the story, this did not extend to all the details included in the item. The Authority also found the Morning Report segment breached the privacy of the child’s family but not of the social worker involved. The fairness standard was also breached as the broadcasts were unfair to the child and their family....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item discussing the results of the first 1News Verian political poll for 2024. The item included analysis and commentary on the poll from 1News’ Deputy Political Editor, which the complainants considered was either ‘biased’, unbalanced, inaccurate or unfair to the coalition Government. The Authority found no breach of the nominated standards: the item included significant relevant perspectives; the statements complained about were comment, analysis, or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply; and the item did not give rise to any unfairness to the politicians or parties featured. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 119/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CREDO SOCIETY INCORPORATED of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 80/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by L C EVANS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging R&R breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness standards. The programme discussed Aotearoa New Zealand’s colonial history. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preferences regarding matters of editorial discretion. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported that a Fijian island used by a New Zealand production company to film the television series Treasure Island, was being “trashed” – interviewed two men who had seen rubbish on the island – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no reasonable basis upon which to conclude that the rubbish was left by Treasure Island production – broadcaster has not provided any evidence to support claims made in the item – inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to production company – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Summary It was reported on One Network News on 18 November 1998 that a yacht which had been grounded in a bay in the Far North had been looted, and that the abandoned boat had been stripped of its electronic gear, solar power unit and rigging. Mr Jackson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the report was grossly exaggerated. He advised that the boat had not been abandoned, and had not been stripped by looters. He acknowledged that some small items had been stolen but noted that all but one of those items had been recovered by the police and returned to the owner. Mr Jackson contended that the report had done the Far North community considerable harm and its errors warranted an apology....

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at a couple running the One World Foundation who had been banned from Samoa because of allegations regarding the legitimacy of their work – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainants were treated fairly – chosen interview excerpts fairly represented the complainants’ position – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 March 2008, reported that “a New Zealand-based couple’s been banned from Samoa for life after being accused of taking freebies in the name of charity”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – investigated one couple’s practice of grazing cattle along the banks of the Pahaoa River in the Wairarapa – interviewed concerned neighbour, environmental scientist, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and spokesman for Federated Farmers – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – story focused on one couple – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the Riddells were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the story – reporter’s approach unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – legal costs to the complainant $1,670 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 4 February 2009, the host introduced a story, saying: Let’s. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Noise Control – followed noise control officers working in Auckland – one officer was called to a 50th birthday party – host of the party shown arguing with him – allegedly in breach of fairness standard FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and her participation – combination of factors resulted in complainant being treated unfairly – upheld OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainant $7,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Noise Control, a reality programme following noise control officers in Auckland, was broadcast on TV3 at 8pm on Monday 2 August 2010. In one segment, the programme’s narrator stated that “noise control officer [name] is on his way to a 50th birthday bash in Ponsonby”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Classic Hits – host told a joke about two people in a “mental hospital” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard only applies to people taking part or referred to in a programme – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item was clearly signalled as a joke – legitimate use of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Classic Hits Breakfast at 7. 45am on 13 June 2007, included a segment called “the 7. 45 funny” in which the following joke was broadcast: Jim and Edna were both patients at a mental hospital....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on “skimming” scheme in which accused allegedly “fleeced money from customers who used eftpos machines inside at least one Auckland business” – referred to and showed footage of the “Brooklyn Bar” in Auckland where, according to one customer, he had his card “skimmed” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item wrongly identified the Brooklyn Bar as having been targeted by the fraud – Brooklyn Bar was singled out and was the only business identified, which was unfair and created the impression the business was unsafe – reporter should have obtained verification from the complainant who owns the bar – complainant not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and correct information – complainant and his business treated unfairly – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast discussing racial tensions arising from coalition government policies. The item mentioned a 1News Verian poll on whether the coalition government’s policies were increasing, decreasing, or making no real difference to racial tensions in Aotearoa New Zealand. The complainant alleged the broadcast, and the poll were ‘incredibly biased’ and that the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it raised issues under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards that could all be dismissed on grounds previously explained to the complainant; the broadcast could not be considered to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the complaint concerned issues of personal preference and had been adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989RNZ News – item reported on French and Greek elections – it was reported that “the polls have opened in Greece for parliamentary elections seen as a referendum on the country’s harsh austerity measures” – use of the word “harsh” allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsJurisdictional matter – on balance, complainant was entitled to refer his complaint on the basis he did not receive the broadcaster’s decision – Authority has jurisdiction to accept complaint Standard 4 (controversial issues) – use of the word “harsh” did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “harsh” was not a material point of fact and would not have misled viewers – “harsh” not pejorative in this context but intended to mean strict or stringent – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...