Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Prince Philip’s birthday – host noted that the Prince had criticised a number of ethnic and social groups over the years – host mentioned the right to freedom of expression – showed a picture of Prince Philip defaced with a moustache and horns, with a speech bubble saying “I’m a dork” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – innocuous prank – raised no issue of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Prince Philip – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint3 News – complainants included one of two survivors of an air crash in which eight people died – message left on answerphone reporting progress and advising that they were not giving interviews to media – answerphone message omitting reference to interviews broadcast as part of news item – breach of privacy – unfair FindingsStandard 3, Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) – answerphone message aimed at all callers – information was released to the public – no intrusion in the nature of prying – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6e – time of stress for the complainants – high public interest – contents of message in public arena – use of message not insensitive or unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Mary Anne Shanahan declared a conflict of interest and stood aside from this decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-066: The New Zealand Jewish Council and Radio Pacific Ltd - 1993-066 PDF (515. 53 KB)...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Breeze and Coromandel Gold FM News – items canvassed allegations against TCDC mayoral candidate with regard to distributing an email he received from TCDC CEO – contained terms “doctored”, “doctoring” and “falsify” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – terms distinguishable as opinion of Mr Minogue’s political rivals – exempt from accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Minogue given an adequate opportunity to respond – treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] News items broadcast simultaneously on The Breeze and Coromandel Gold FM on the mornings of 16 and 17 September 2010, canvassed allegations against Thames-Coromandel District Council (TCDC) mayoral candidate Dal Minogue, with regard to distributing an email he received from the CEO of the TCDC, Steve Ruru....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on a study into the effects of 1080 poison on native robins – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – the use of 1080 as a method for pest control in New Zealand is a controversial issue of public importance – use of 1080 has been the subject of ongoing debate and the item contributed a new development in the debate – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of arguments on both sides of the debate – significant viewpoints were presented in the programme to an extent that was appropriate given the nature of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccurate headlines did not form part of television broadcast so outside our jurisdiction – reporter’s statements were not material to the focus of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the hosts of Midweek Mediawatch concerning sexual violence during the October 7 attacks in Israel were inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair for downplaying or denying that sexual violence occurred. During an extended discussion concerning an interview on Q + A, and how the Israel-Hamas conflict is reported on generally, the hosts noted reporting of sexual violence on 7 October 2023 had been challenged by other outlets, and mentioned that the Q + A interview did not challenge these claims. The Authority found that the statements were more consistent with analysis, comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. However, it found relevant statements were, in any event, not misleading. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Dasam Granth Da Sach. During the programme the host made comments about a well-known female Sikh preacher, including that she should marry a Taksali (traditionally trained Sikh) rather than a Jāgaruka (enlightened Sikh), because she supports the ideology of the former, and because husbands ‘in our society’ resort to beating when offended by their wives. The host also used words that can carry sexual connotations but, in the specific context of the broadcast, were unlikely to do so. The Authority acknowledged the potentially offensive nature of the comments to some people, but found overall the potential harm arising was not at a level justifying regulatory intervention or restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about language used in a Seven Sharp interview with Neil Finn. At two separate points in the interview, presenter Jeremy Wells and Finn referred to another band member as ‘a GC’ and a ‘good [beep]’; and later Finn quoted a review of his own album, which said, ‘red card, you [beep]’. The Authority found the broadcast was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and unlikely to adversely affect child viewers, taking into account: Seven Sharp is an unclassified news and current affairs programme targeted at adults (during which adult supervision is expected); the content was consistent with audience expectations of Seven Sharp and Jeremy Wells; Wells and Finn had the right to express themselves in language of their choosing (within the boundaries of the standards); and all uses of the c-word were appropriately censored....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding a 1 News item. The item opened by referring to ‘weeks of tension between Jews and Christians in Israel’. This was inaccurate as the item reported on tensions between Israelis and Palestinians during a period of overlapping religious holidays. The broadcaster acknowledged the reference to Christians was an error, but did not uphold the original complaint as the error was ‘implicitly corrected by the full context of the story’. The Authority found, given the item immediately following reported on violence between Muslim and Jewish people, the inaccuracy in the introduction was unlikely to mislead the audience overall. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a voice break on the radio music show Selectah, the presenter said, 'If you are a scooter rider, in the city, in Auckland, let me give you one piece of advice: Don't get your scooter fixed by Scootling, they charge way too much. ' MediaWorks upheld a fairness complaint from the owner of Scootling and offered him a number of options for redress including an on-air apology and free advertising. The Authority disagreed with the complainant that this action was insufficient. It also declined to uphold his complaints that the broadcast otherwise breached standards relating to law and order and accuracy. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken), Law and Order, Accuracy Introduction[1] During a voice break on a radio music show, Selectah, the presenter said: I'm waiting for my scooter guy to turn up. . ....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

ComplaintFair Go – auction of house – sale fell through – house resold to unsuccessful bidder – unreasonable to charge two commissions – unfair – unbalanced Findings(1) Standard G4 – promo – unfair – uphold (2) Standard G4 – items explained issues fairly – no uphold – Standards G6, G7 G11(i) – subsumed No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Fair Go, a consumer advocate programme, is broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 30pm. In the episodes broadcast on 12 and 19 July 2000, it reported that the vendor of a house believed that he had been unfairly charged a second commission by real estate agents after a first sale had fallen through and a subsequent sale had been made. His belief was alluded to in a promo for Fair Go which was broadcast on a number of occasions....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters had several light-hearted discussions about the Pope – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – presenters did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenters’ comments distinguishable from points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not denigrate the Pope or Catholics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7am on Tuesday 26 February 2008, the presenters, Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell, and the newsreader, Peter Williams, had a jovial discussion about the current Pope and what he had been doing recently....

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....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....