Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM Dunedin – complainant live on-air as winner of two movie tickets – said she was studying – host allegedly said “and to think three years ago you were sitting on your arse doing nothing going nowhere” – allegedly unfair and breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – no intrusion – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – comment intended as compliment – apology offered in view of misunderstanding appropriate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The complainant was a caller to More FM Dunedin as the winner of two movie tickets. She was put on air by the host and, in response to a question, she said that she was studying....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-075 Decision No: 1997-076 Decision No: 1997-077 Decision No: 1997-078 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by GEOFFREY PRENTICE of Auckland and GERARD ROBERTS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nelson Newstalk ZB interview following local body elections – Mayor of Nelson commented on his lessened majority – stated that Grey Power had been “hijacked” by members of his opponent’s team – allegedly unbalanced, unfair, inaccurate and encouraged denigration Findings Principle 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – no persons treated unfairly – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – expression of opinion – standard does not apply – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) and Guideline 7a (denigration) – expression of opinion – standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A broadcast on Nelson Newstalk ZB on 11 October 2004 at around 11. 30am featured an interview with the winning Mayors of Nelson (Paul Matheson) and Tasman (John Hurley)....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – episode devoted to controversy about Meningococcal B vaccine and immunisation campaign – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – a range of significant views advanced about a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies and not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – taking into account the format of programme, panel member Ron Law treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The controversy about the Meningococcal B vaccine and the current immunisation campaign was dealt with during an entire episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 July 2005. The item included interviews undertaken in Norway at the laboratory that developed the vaccine on which the New Zealand vaccine was based....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host Tim Drover – terminated two calls perfunctorily – one caller described as “old witch” with a “brain the size of a pea” – allegedly unfair, offensive, unbalanced, and denigratory Findings Principle 5 (fairness) – calls terminated to prevent the broadcast of racist views – comments borderline unfair – not upheld Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – not offensive in talkback context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – not unbalanced – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) and Guideline 7a (denigration) – not socially irresponsible to avoid the expression of racist views – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A caller to Newstalk ZB referred to her visit to Porirua City but the host (Tim Drover) interrupted her....

Joanne Morris, Chair of the Authority, declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority’s determination of the complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about a report which disclosed internal fraud at the Immigration Service – allegedly unbalanced and misleading Findings Standard 4 (balance) – balance of perspectives aired – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not part of original complaint – no jurisdiction to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The lead item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 8 April 2004, concerned a report that reviewed the Immigration Service’s processes when dealing with investigations into allegations of internal corruption....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 3 News item reported on National Party candidate Mark Osborne's failure to name all bridges relevant to his campaign promise during the Northland by-election, to convert 10 bridges to two lanes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the editing of the item was unfair to Mr Osborne by creating the impression he was unable to name all 10 bridges. The item contained clear statements as to the number of bridges Mr Osborne could name and did not unfairly represent his state of knowledge. Further, the item was broadcast in the context of a robust by-election environment when politicians can expect a high level of scrutiny....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-018:Shaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-018 PDF591. 45 KB...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an episode of New Zealand Today. The complaint was that an interviewee was treated unfairly, and the segment discriminated against and denigrated the elderly. Noting that comments concerning the interviewee were based on his individual actions and views (rather than his status as ‘elderly’) and that the discrimination and denigration standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of genuine expressions of comment, legitimate humour or satire, the Authority found no breach of that standard. In the context, the Authority also found the interviewee was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was a breach of broadcasting standards for an expert interviewee to suggest the anti-mask/anti-vaccination movement was behind bomb threats made to several New Zealand schools. The Authority found that while the issue of who was responsible constituted a controversial issue of public importance, the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, so the balance standard was not breached. It also found that anti-mask/anti-vaccination advocates are not groups to which the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, 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...

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item briefly described a ruling of the International Court of Justice in relation to Israel’s actions in Rafah, and an academic’s perspective on the potential reaction of the international community. The complainant argued other perspectives and information should have been included, the description of the ruling was inaccurate, and the various statements, omissions and inaccuracies contributed to breaches of multiple standards. The Authority found the brief item did not constitute a ‘discussion’, so the balance standard did not apply. With regard to accuracy, the Authority found the description of the ruling was reasonable and the broadcaster had exercised reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. It also found the academic’s reference to ‘attacking’ by Israel constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and was materially accurate....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under multiple standards, regarding two news items broadcast on Labour Day 2024: one about a protest against a proposed sewerage project and the other about commemoration of New Zealand’s Land Wars. Noting the complaint was not about content in the broadcasts but content the complainant wished to see included, the Authority found it related to editorial discretion and personal preference, which is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to Determine (s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 - in all circumstances): Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint a discussion on an inquiry and proposed reforms to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 breached the accuracy, balance and fairness standards, due to the broadcaster failing to provide prior warning to the complainant of the inclusion of a further participant to the discussion, and for not providing sufficient time for the complainant to respond to the new participant’s analysis. The Authority found the complainant was provided with a fair opportunity to articulate his position and to respond to concerns raised by other participants; the alleged inaccuracies amounted to analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply, and the analysis was not materially misleading with respect to any facts referred to. Noting the perspectives included in the broadcast, the Authority found the complainant’s concerns about balance were better addressed under accuracy and fairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on 1News covering a Hobson’s Pledge campaign against bilingual road signage. The complaint was that the coverage was biased and unfair by suggesting feedback using the Hobson’s Pledge template was ‘bad’, trying to influence how people gave feedback, and only interviewing members of the public in support of bilingual signage. The Authority found the broadcaster provided sufficient balance and the item was not unfair, as Hobson’s Pledge was given an opportunity to comment, and its position was adequately presented in the item. The complaint did not identify any inaccurate statement or reasons why the item was inaccurate, and the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...