Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – item featured a woman who ran a sanctuary for ex-battery hens – included footage of caged hens – woman described condition of hens when they arrived at her property – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item focused on the experience of one woman – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about uric acid presented as fact – inaccurate but immaterial in context of human interest story – point was that chickens were in poor condition as a result of being caged – not misleading to use footage of battery hens – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – industry not an individual or organisation taking part or referred to – complainant did not take part and was not referred to – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on 7 Days was unfair to a singer who performed the New Zealand national anthem ahead of an All Blacks game in San Diego. The complainants said the broadcast was unfair to the performer and unbalanced, noting she was accused of ‘butchering’ the anthem and called ‘Dunedin’s most well-known murderer’. The Authority found the programme was not unfair, noting: viewers were unlikely to interpret the programme as suggesting the performer was an actual murderer or criminal; having chosen to perform at such an event, she could reasonably expect comment on her performance; viewers would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of the performer; comments were directed at the performance rather than the performer personally; and that comedy and satire are valuable forms of expression. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance...

Summary Pictures of a crashed, burning light aeroplane, the only one of its kind in New Zealand, were shown on One Network News on 28 August 1998 beginning at 6. 00pm. It was reported that two people had been killed in the accident. W complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast constituted a breach of privacy and good taste. She pointed out that as the widow of one of those killed, she had not at that stage been informed of the accident. She complained that in its haste to get the item to air, TVNZ had omitted to consider the feelings of the widows and families of the two men killed. She contended that it must have known that there had not been sufficient time to inform the families....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on Haitian Vodou – interviewed New Zealand vodou high priest and one of his spiritual children – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – interviewee’s partner could have been identified through their relationship but no private facts disclosed in a highly offensive manner – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – points raised by the complainants were not material points of fact – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Haitian Vodou not an organisation to which the standard applies – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not carry invective necessary to encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, Haitian Vodou believers as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – property sale – gratuitous exposure of the vendors’ relationship – allegedly insensitive and unfair FindingsStandard 6 – argument pivotal to transaction– no adverse reflection on complainant – not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode in the series Location, Location, Location was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Monday 7 July 2003. One part of the programme featured Mr and Mrs Hepworth attempting to sell their home. [2] Mrs Hepworth complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unfair to her by including an argument between her and her husband that was incidental to the programme. [3] TVNZ maintained that it could not identify any aspect of the programme where the complainant had been treated unfairly. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintBreakfast – Social commentator’s pre-Christmas reference to Jesus Christ as "a Middle Eastern carpenter who owned nothing" – insensitive and offensive to Christians FindingsStandard 6 and Guideline 6g – satire – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Comments made on Breakfast between 7. 00–9. 00am by a social commentator, Joe Bennett, were broadcast on TV One on Friday 13 December 2002. During the programme, Joe Bennett expressed the view that Jesus Christ was "a Middle Eastern carpenter who owned nothing". [2] Colleen Pollard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the timing and nature of the commentary was both insensitive and offensive to Christians....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the life and death of Jesus – consulted various experts – challenged traditional Christian view as encapsulated in the gospels – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – issues canvassed in the programme were matters of historical interest as opposed to controversial issues of public importance – authorial documentary approached from perspective of Mr Bruce – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the commonly accepted view of the gospels – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the programme consisted of Mr Bruce’s comment and opinion based on his personal research – viewers would not have been misled – given subject matter of documentary the Authority is not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Rotten Shame – investigated systematic failures in the building industry that led to the leaky homes crisis – reporter door-stepped building inspector who had inspected a house eleven years earlier which had since been demolished – portion of the interview included in the programme – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr George by door-stepping him was unfair – broadcaster’s action in upholding the complaint and apologising to the complainant in its decision was inadequate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – other aspects of the programme were not unfair to the complainant – item focused on systematic failures which led to the leaky homes crisis rather than on the…...

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Devlin Live – discussion of a press release from BP Oil explaining prices – allegedly unfair and in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – BP Communications Manager not personally attacked – not unfair – not unfair to criticise BP’s policy on fuel prices – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On Wednesday 7 September 2005, at around 8. 45am, the host of the Radio Live breakfast show Devlin Live, Martin Devlin, made a number of critical comments about a press release from BP Oil concerning petrol prices. The host referred to the press release as “PR BS” (public relations bullshit), and offered his view that BP Oil were trying to “screw” and “root” consumers....

ComplaintSome of my best friends are … Muslims – Muslims, Christians and "zsh" described favourably as religions – "zsh" apparently "Jewish" but allegedly censored – excision breached standards of balance, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4; Standard 5; Standard 6 – no evidence of any censorship in programme designed to promote tolerance – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The comments made by a Muslim woman were indistinct when she was promoting understanding between Muslims, Christians and a third religious group – possibly Jews. The incident occurred in the programme, Some of my best friends are… which looks at minority groups in New Zealand. Muslims was the group featured in the programme broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 29 March 2003....

ComplaintSunday – investigation of Dr Richard Gorringe who had been found guilty of professional misconduct and disgraceful conduct through use of alternative medicines – biased – unfair – misleading FindingsStandard 4 – reasonable opportunities given – not unbalanced – no uphold Standard 6 – Dr Gorringe dealt with fairly as ample opportunity given to present views – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The use by Dr Richard Gorringe of alternative medicine, alongside conventional medicine, was investigated in an item broadcast on Sunday at 7. 30pm on TV One on 2 September 2003. Dr Gorringe had been found guilty by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on two charges of professional misconduct and one of disgraceful conduct. [2] Margaret Kirk complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was biased and unfair, and trivialised the work of Dr Gorringe....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Waitangi: What Really Happened – docu-drama about events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Waitangi: What Really Happened was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 6 February 2011. The programme was a docu-drama following the events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...