Search

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on likely ban of guided heli-hunting on conservation land – contained file footage of commercial deer recovery – footage allegedly inaccurate, misleading and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – footage of commercial hunting would have misled viewers to believe that it applied directly to the story – footage should have been explained to ensure that viewers understood it related to commercial hunting which is a completely different industry to heli-hunting – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item did not mislead – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – commercial hunting industry was not an “organisation” for the purposes of the standard – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item focused on couple who received verbal estimate for plumbing work that was significantly less than the final bill – included interview with the couple and the plumber –advised viewers on how to avoid unanticipated costs by obtaining written quotes – allegedly unfair to plumber FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – plumber provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his viewpoint was adequately reflected in the item – item did not create unfairly negative representation of plumber’s character or conduct – high level of public interest in advice provided to tradespeople and consumers – plumber treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A and Marae Investigates – items discussed domestic violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed controversial issue of public importance – items clearly framed as focusing on men’s violence against women – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of domestic violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-010:Odinot and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-010 PDF426. 74 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-072:Minister of Health (Hon Simon Upton) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-072 PDF489. 34 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-014:Housing Corporation of New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-014 PDF528. 83 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-026–027:New Zealand Business Roundtable and Treasury and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-026, 1990-027 PDF3. 73 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Radio Tarana reported on the Sanil Kumar Medical Fund, which had been set up for the treatment of a young Fijian-Indian man in New Zealand who had subsequently been deported to Fiji and died. There were allegations by the immediate family of Mr Kumar and others that the fund was being misused by its directors. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the broadcasts were unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, denigrating and caused panic among the public. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide balance and fairness, no inaccuracies could be identified, the discrimination and denigration standard was not applicable and the broadcasts were not presented irresponsibly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday Morning with Wallace Chapman, titled ‘Abortion and Civil Liberties – the Thames Stand-Off’, discussed ‘pro-life’ protestors, Voice for Life, and their longstanding protests outside Thames Hospital. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter was biased and that his treatment of the ‘pro-life’ representative was negative, unfair and unbalanced in comparison to his treatment of the ‘pro-choice’ representative. The Authority found that Mr Chapman’s treatment of the interviewees did not result in an unbalanced broadcast, as both perspectives on the debate were adequately put forward during the programme. While Mr Chapman’s questioning of the ‘pro-life’ representative was robust, his criticisms related to the Voice for Life group as a whole, and he did not attack the interviewee personally or come across as abusive towards her, such that she was treated unfairly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a talkback segment on the Leighton Smith Show, the host discussed the recent legal personhood granted to the Whanganui River. The complainant, Mr Haines, phoned in to the programme to discuss the issue. After a two-and-a-half minute conversation, Mr Smith responded that it was ‘stupidity to give [the Whanganui River] equal status as a person. Now get off the phone,’ and made comments about Mr Haines self-identifying as Māori. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Smith’s statements were derogatory and insulting to Mr Haines and to Māori people. While the Authority acknowledged that Mr Smith’s comments could be seen as dismissive and disrespectful, in the context of the robust talkback radio environment, they did not reach the level necessary to constitute unfair treatment or to encourage discrimination or denigration....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the hosts discussed their conversation with a guest the previous day who was described as a successful voice coach, and who gave tips about putting on a ‘sexy voice’. One of the hosts prank called two phone sex chat lines and spoke to the operators to see whether they used a ‘sexy voice’. One of the operators he spoke with was the complainant, who discussed practical aspects of the service, including how calls were conducted and paid for. A distinctive sound could be heard in the background of the call. The Authority upheld a complaint from the operator that this broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair....

Chair Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Following the issue of this decision, the Authority received new information from a third party refuting certain allegations made by the complainant about, and descriptions of, the dairy farm referred to in the decision owned by 'B'. The Authority wishes to note that the descriptions of the farm owned by B used in this decision have been disputed. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Sunday, titled ‘The Price of Milk’, followed a reporter as he visited two dairy farms in the Hauraki Plains. The reporter spent time with two farmers, A and B, to hear their perspectives on their work and the issues facing the industry, such as the impact of dairy farming on New Zealand waterways, abuse of bobby calves and financial struggles....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On 18 March 2017, RNZ reported on allegations made by the Board of Trustees at Salisbury School, a Nelson school for girls with complex learning needs, that the Ministry of Education (Ministry) had actively discouraged parents from enrolling children at the school so that it could be closed. On 31 March and 6 April 2017, RNZ broadcast a series of items about an alleged lack of funding, resources and support for Northland teachers struggling to cope with violent and disruptive children. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the Ministry that RNZ’s coverage of these issues was unfair and unbalanced....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on The Project that discussed whether bystanders should step in if they see parents treating their children in a way they do not agree with. At the beginning of the segment the presenters described an incident in which a father (the complainant) allegedly disciplined his son by denying him afternoon tea. Another parent reported this to Oranga Tamariki, who later found no cause for action and dismissed the complaint. The complainant argued the segment omitted important details about the incident, and was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority acknowledged the significant effect these events have had on the complainant and his family....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview conducted with then-Minister of Health, Dr David Clark, on his breaches of the COVID-19 Alert Level 4 ‘lockdown rules’. The complainant argued that the interview amounted to harassment and bullying, and breached the fairness standard. The Authority found that the robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected of a public figure being interviewed on a matter of significant public interest, particularly given the expectation as to how politicians will be treated by the media. Not Upheld: Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News which reported on the shooting of Jacob Blake by police and the subsequent protests that occurred. The complainant argued the item included false statements, and omitted relevant background information about the incident and about Mr Blake. The Authority found the statements made were not materially inaccurate and were unlikely to mislead viewers in the context, given the wide coverage and commentary available at the time. The Authority also found the omitted background information was not material to the matters reported. The Authority found the balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Sunday, featuring a family who complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about allegedly inadequate maternity healthcare following the death of their baby, breached the fairness and privacy standards. The Authority found it was unfair to name the complainant, HV, as the consultant obstetrician on the case prior to the HDC completing its investigation or making any findings. Singling out HV in this way had the effect of predetermining an adverse conclusion about their responsibility (whether or not that was the broadcaster’s intention), and the complainant was not informed about the proposed broadcast or given an opportunity to respond or mitigate any reputational impact. On privacy, the Authority found the fact HV was subject to an HDC complaint was information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy....