Search Rapua

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – host Larry Williams – guest Michael Laws – New York terrorist attack – President Bush's actions described as pathetic – ignorant and offensive comments FindingsPrinciple 7 – nominated by broadcaster – inappropriate Principle 5 – correct standard – comments not unfair in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The terrorist attack in New York City on 11 September 2001 was the topic discussed on Newstalk ZB between host Larry Williams and commentator Michael Laws at about 6. 20pm on 14 September 2001. During the discussion, Mr Laws described President George Bush’s actions as "pathetic". [2] Murray McEwan complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that Mr Laws’ comments were "appallingly" ignorant and offensive. He deplored the host’s response who had allowed the guest’s remarks to go unchallenged....

ComplaintTarget – preparation and presentation of programme unfair - florists tested – test conducted unfairly – assessor not independent or impartial – response unfairly edited FindingsStandard G4 – test and setting up process not unfair – other standards not relevant – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 on 28 November 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm featured six florists who were graded on their ability to complete an order. Ms Newcombe and Mr Hall complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast had portrayed their business unfairly. They alleged that a number of broadcasting standards had been breached both by the broadcast and the preparation of the programme. TV3 responded that the test had been devised on the advice of an independent technical consultant and that the florists had been selected randomly....

SummaryA news item broadcast in Maori on the National Programme at 6. 08am on 15 July 1993referred to the controversy which ensued after an essay about the appropriation of Maorisymbolism by Pakeha artists was published in the catalogue to an art exhibition in Sydney. Mr Panoho, whose essay was the source of the controversy, complained to Radio NewZealand Ltd that the broadcast failed to convey his views accurately and that it did notdeal fairly with him because it attributed to him views that were contradictory to hispublished opinions. In response, RNZ reported that the material in the news item had originated from apublished article it had examined which commented on Mr Panoho's essay. It believedthat the article's interpretation of Mr Panoho's views was accurate and considered thatbecause the broadcast was a factual report of publicly expressed opinions there was nobreach of broadcasting standards. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-062:Connolly and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-062 PDF416. 71 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-046–051:Whyte and 5 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-046–051 PDF1. 94 MB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Edwards at Large – interview with complainant – interviewee ambushed into taking part – unfair, partial and unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – interview not unbalanced – no upholdStandard 6 – complainant adequately informed of the reason for her contribution and the role expected of her – conduct of interview not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Lynley Hood was interviewed by Brian Edwards on Edwards at Large about the content of her book “A City Possessed: the Christchurch Civic Crèche case”. The programme was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on Saturday 16 August 2003. [2] Ms Hood complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was neither balanced nor impartial and that she had been ambushed into participating in the interview....

ComplaintHolmes Election Special; Prime Ministerial Debate – unbalanced – unfair to leader of opposition FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – live debate – robust discussion – similar allocation of time to present views – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A Holmes Election Special; Prime Ministerial Debate programme was broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 22 July 2002. It featured Ms Helen Clark and Mr Bill English, the leaders of the two main political parties. It was a general election programme, broadcast live with a studio audience, and the leaders were questioned on their party policies. [2] Mr Hugh Webb complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced and that Mr English was treated unfairly....

SummaryWhen Women Kill, a documentary about two women who had both served 10 years in prison for murder was broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1999 at 8. 30pm. Bruce Tichbon complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that individuals referred to in the programme by the two women had not been treated fairly as they had not been given an opportunity to respond to accusations made about their conduct. He also complained that the programme was unbalanced because of comments made by a prison manager and because, Mr Tichbon said, it portrayed women as victims and men as violent abusers of women and children. TVNZ responded that the programme had not concealed the fact that it was tracing the women’s lives from their point of view. In those circumstances it considers it was not necessary to include the people referred to in the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed brief visual overview of New Zealand flags – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – complaint frivolous and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Items broadcast on Campbell Live on TV3 at 7pm on 22 and 23 September 2011, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag, which had been a topic of discussion during the Rugby World Cup....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, host Mike Hosking offered his views on the incident of Prime Minister John Key's repeated pulling of a café waitress' ponytail. He described the waitress' motivations for speaking out as 'selfish' and 'a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks'. The Authority upheld complaints that this was unfair to the waitress. While public figures can expect criticism and robust scrutiny, in the Authority's view the waitress was not a public figure. The format of the 'final word' segment did not allow for a response from the waitress so she was unable to defend herself in this context. The Authority did not uphold the remainder of the complaints. Upheld: FairnessNot Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationNo OrderIntroduction[1] In April 2015 there was public disclosure of some conduct of the Prime Minister....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – items reported that the Ministry of Social Development had hired a “prominent drag queen to motivate staff” – reported that the National Party believed taxpayers’ money was being wasted – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – items implied MSD had hired a drag artist as a motivational speaker – MSD had really hired Edward Cowley as a professional facilitator – misleading and inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to MSD and to Mr Cowley – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into Standards 5 and 6 Order Section 16(4) – payment of $2500 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Q+A, broadcast on TVNZ 1, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which included questions about the Government’s COVID-19 response, leaking of information regarding the ‘Green School’ funding, New Zealand First Party funding, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and a tax-payer funded trip of Mr Peters’ two friends to Antarctica. The complainant argued the interview breached the fairness standard because the broadcaster did not give Mr Peters notice of his proposed contribution regarding the various topics raised. The Authority found the wide-ranging and robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected for a high profile and senior political figure like Mr Peters on matters of significant public interest in the lead up to a general election. Not Upheld: Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go dealing with the ‘flushability’ of nappy liners breached the accuracy, fairness, privacy and balance standards. The Authority found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading in suggesting the liners were not ‘flushable’. It found the complainant was not treated unfairly as a result of the broadcast of a recorded ‘cold call’ and the complainant’s views were fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of privacy standards and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

ComplaintEureka – Royal Commission on Genetic Modification – GE Free rally – rally participants interviewed – approach assured participants rejected Commission findings – views misrepresented – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 5 – interviewees not treated unfairly – no uphold Principle 6 – factual reports and opinion distinguished – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with one of the Commissioners from the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, and comments from participants at a GE-Free rally, were included in the edition of Eureka broadcast on National Radio on 9 September 2001 and repeated on 10 September. Eureka is a science magazine programme broadcast weekly. [2] Jon Carapiet complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme’s approach was unbalanced as the item sought to represent those at the rally as ill-informed. Consequently, he said, their views were misrepresented....

ComplaintMore FM – radio competition – disclosure of work-place – unfair – breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (v) – complainant’s work-place private information – uphold – apology to complainant sufficientPrinciple 5 – broadcaster upheld complaint – action taken sufficientNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] On 10 May 2002, B entered a radio competition on More FM in Dunedin. B’s work-place details were broadcast, after he had specifically stated that he did not want his work-place disclosed on-air. [2] B complained to More FM, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached his privacy and was a "blatant and deceitful" breach of the requirement that broadcasters deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a broadcast. He also complained directly to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the same broadcast had breached his privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the 'three strikes' legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaintFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....