Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Edge – broadcast conversation with listener – hosts had told listener that she was not on air – broadcast her cellphone number – listener complained that broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair – broadcaster upheld the complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – action taken insufficient – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken insufficient – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Wednesday 27 August 2008 on The Edge radio station, a telephone conversation between the hosts and a listener was broadcast between 5pm and 6pm. The listener expressed concern that the hosts were making inappropriate remarks about people from other countries, such as India and America....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Homai Te Pakipaki – singing contest – viewers had the opportunity to vote via text messaging for their favourite contestant – allegedly in breach of fairness, programme information and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – programme clearly based on popularity with voters rather than talent – standard does not apply to viewers as they are not individuals taking part or referred to – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – conditions of voting were made clear – no evidence to suggest that viewers were deceived or disadvantaged – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was not targeted at children – broadcaster adequately considered interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Homai Te Pakipaki, a karaoke-style singing contest, was broadcast on Māori TV at 8....

SummaryLight-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7. 30–8. 00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology. Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint3 News – item about bad weather featured car accident footage – woman passenger shown injured – unnecessary intrusion into woman’s distress – graphic footage gratuitous Findings(1) Standard G17 – footage not unnecessarily intrusive – no uphold (2) Standard V12 – material insufficiently graphic – no uphold Cross-referenceDecision: 2000-141–143 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage of a car accident was shown during a news items about bad weather and related problems faced by drivers in the Queenstown area. A woman passenger was shown emerging from the crashed car bleeding from a head wound. The item was broadcast on 3 News on TV3 on 11 June 2000 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm....

The Authority has not upheld complaints that action taken by Radio New Zealand Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld the complaints under the accuracy standard about a statement in a news bulletin that a recent ruling by the International Court of Justice had found Israel ‘not guilty of genocide. ’ While the Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaints, it found RNZ had taken sufficient steps in response to the complaints, by broadcasting an on-air correction within a reasonable period after the bulletin at issue, as well as posting a correction to its website. 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), Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an RNZ News bulletin reporting on the arrest of Kiritapu Allan, and political commentators’ views on the implications for Labour’s election chances, breached the balance and fairness standards. The complaint considered the item favoured two ‘negative’ opinions that were ‘noticeably biased against the Labour government’ and ignored a ‘positive’ balancing view available ‘just minutes earlier’ from Minister James Shaw. The Authority found the item was balanced, having included alternative significant perspectives just prior to the news bulletin. The fairness standard did not apply to the concern of how a ‘situation’ is presented, and in any event, the Authority did not consider either Allan or the Labour Party were treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld complaints under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards regarding an item on 1 News reporting on the global economy. The item referred to the National Party’s tax policy and included comments from both the Leader of the Opposition Christopher Luxon MP and Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. The complainants considered the report’s editing of comments misled the audience to ‘think that PM Jacinda Ardern thinks financial discipline is not right nor good for New Zealand’. The Authority did not consider a reasonable viewer would be left with this impression. The balance and fairness standards were not breached. Not upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards about an interviewee saying, on Midday Report, Foreign Affairs Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters was ‘touching himself instead of doing a real job of caring for New Zealanders in difficulty’. Noting the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher for politicians and public figures, the Authority found the brief comment would not have left listeners with an unfairly negative impression of Peters. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – items investigated complaint against The Battery Clinic and its manager, the complainant, relating to a system developed to extend the life of batteries in older hybrid vehicles – experts expressed concerns about the safety of the system – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Fair Go had a sufficient basis for presenting the view that the system developed by the complainant was potentially dangerous – complainant provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to claims and to defend his invention, and his perspective was fairly presented in the broadcasts – very high public interest in reporting on matters that have the potential to impact on public safety – overall, complainant and the Battery Clinic were treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccuracies related to mechanical and engineering matters outside the Authority’s expertise…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live talkback – complainant strongly criticised the host’s approach in an interview with Georgina te Heuheu MP – after some two minutes of uninterrupted comment, the host cut off caller and, while declining to identify her, said that she had her own agendas and that she shouldn’t ring because it wasn’t appropriate for her to call talkback – broadcaster’s approach allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – complainant’s criticism of host and host’s criticism of complainant were not controversial issues of public importance - standard does not apply – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – host’s critical response to experienced caller’s criticisms in robust talkback environment not unfair – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – standard does not apply as exchange was neither news nor current affairs – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In a weekly interview segment on Mike Hosking Breakfast, Prime Minister John Key criticised the Labour Party while discussing a number of political topics. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host displayed political bias and let the Prime Minister criticise other parties unchallenged, without them being offered any right of reply. This segment with the Prime Minister of the day has been running for 25 years, it was transparently political advocacy, and it did not purport to be a balanced or even-handed discussion of political issues. Other politicians were also interviewed on Newstalk ZB on a regular basis. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Fairness, Accuracy, Responsible Programming, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction [1] In a weekly interview segment on Mike Hosking Breakfast, the Prime Minister John Key criticised the Labour Party while discussing a number of political topics....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp on Valentine’s Day reported on a woman who had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item glamorised theft and was unfair to the man. It was clear from the item that the woman had given the man ample opportunity to retrieve the sunglasses, and he was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgramingIntroduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp, broadcast on 14 February 2014, included an ‘anti-Valentine’s Day’ story where a woman had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert & Jono’s Drive Show – host told personal anecdote about a man with Down Syndrome who fell off a swing and hurt himself – story intended to be humorous – host used the term “mental” to refer to people with intellectual disabilities – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – story was conveyed in a light-hearted manner – the term “mental” in reference to people with intellectual disabilities was used without malice or invective – co-host made mitigating comments – host also made comments that were positive towards people with intellectual disabilities – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments did not amount to hate speech or vitriol and the story was told without malice – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against,…...