Search Rapua

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…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-013:Papprill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-013 PDF560. 09 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-021:New Zealand Fishing Industry Association and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-021 PDF916. 23 KB...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go was unfair to the fencing contractor investigated. The Authority found that the fencing contractor was not treated fairly, due to the way he was set-up to be interviewed (under the guise of calling him to a job) and because he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him in the programme. The Authority also found that the inclusion of information about the contractor’s past which had a criminal element was unfair as it was not relevant to the issues being investigated in this item and contributed to an unfairly negative impression of him. The accuracy complaint was not upheld as the item did not mislead or present inaccurate information, and the balance standard did not apply as the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News, about claims from the Department of Conservation (DOC) that staff had been abused and attacked by anti-1080 protestors, breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was unlikely to mislead or misinform audiences, as it contained comments from various parties including a DOC representative, an anti-1080 campaigner and a National Party MP. The Authority highlighted the importance of the reporting on issues of public importance in an accurate and balanced manner, finding that the broadcaster did so on this occasion....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. It noted the complainant had not identified any inaccuracies or particular issues of public importance requiring balance. It also found the two interviewees were treated fairly and the interviews represented what it expects of the media in performing its role of scrutinising and holding to account those in power. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – news item referring to previous evening's TV3 programme entitled Let Us Spray – discussed a serum study investigating exposure to dioxins among residents of Paritutu – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6Standard 5 (accuracy) – three inaccurate statements – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – unfair to ESR – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to ESR $3,000 Section 16(4) – costs to the Crown $2,500This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item on Māori TV’s bid for the free-to-air broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup – included satirical sketch about what Māori TV’s coverage would look like – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – legitimate satire – lacked necessary invective to cross threshold for denigration of Māori as a section of the community – Māori TV not a section of the community – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Māori TV treated fairly – Pita Shaples and Julian Wilcox treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item was satire – did not “discuss” a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did…...

ComplaintGive It a Whirl – documentary – stories from rock'n'roll era in New Zealand – included comments about a 1960s music show C'mon – ‘apple incident' recalled and comments said to be inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 – majority – evidence sufficient to conclude that incident did not occur – uphold – minority – anecdote not expected to be entirely accurate – no uphold Standard 6 – evidence sufficient to rule that complainant treated unfairly – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Give It a Whirl was a documentary series about the rock'n'roll era in New Zealand. An episode broadcast on TV One at 8. 40pm on 2 June 2003 referred to C'mon – a televised national music show in the 1960s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there is no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – did not imply that products which did not comply with the Australian standard for sunscreens were inferior – not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to compare products for consumer information – clearly based on a family’s opinion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast on TV3 at 7....

Download a PDF of this interlocutory decision:Interlocutory Decision 1999-ID001–ID008 PDF185. 96 kB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – featured a story on the experience of a tenant whose family allegedly suffered health problems as a result of living on a property that contained traces of methamphetamine – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that the house was formerly used to manufacture methamphetamine – overstated evidence, for example by reference to the “house” and “home” as opposed to just the garage, and by creating impression a ‘P’ lab had existed when the contamination was marginal and could have been caused by smoking – failed to outline the parameters of the FISL report or make any reference to NZDDA report which found no trace of methamphetamine – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld Standard 6…...

SummaryA news item broadcast in Maori on the National Programme at 6. 08am on 15 July 1993referred to the controversy which ensued after an essay about the appropriation of Maorisymbolism by Pakeha artists was published in the catalogue to an art exhibition in Sydney. Mr Panoho, whose essay was the source of the controversy, complained to Radio NewZealand Ltd that the broadcast failed to convey his views accurately and that it did notdeal fairly with him because it attributed to him views that were contradictory to hispublished opinions. In response, RNZ reported that the material in the news item had originated from apublished article it had examined which commented on Mr Panoho's essay. It believedthat the article's interpretation of Mr Panoho's views was accurate and considered thatbecause the broadcast was a factual report of publicly expressed opinions there was nobreach of broadcasting standards. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber, and made unfair and derogatory comments about her duties and her personal attributes. The broadcaster upheld the complaint, and Mr Henry apologised on air a week later. The Authority considered the segment to be a serious breach of standards, but in all the circumstances found the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken) Introduction [1] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber and discussed her position and responsibilities. The presenter also read out excerpts from her job description....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The host of The Paul Henry Show and a TV3 reporter briefly discussed the future of Auckland’s Wynyard Quarter tram service, in a new segment titled ‘Council Watch’, and summarised the cost of the project to rate-payers. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the segment was one-sided and misled viewers about the reason the trams were not currently operating. It is legitimate and important for the expenditure of public money to be scrutinized and subject to robust criticism, and the focus of the item was the cost of the project; other reasons why the tram service was not running were peripheral to that focus, so viewers would not have been misled by omitting reference to those reasons....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-062:Connolly and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-062 PDF416. 71 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint from the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) about an interview with Nicky Hager discussing the results of an Australian enquiry into its Defence Force and the implications for the NZDF. The Authority noted the high public interest in the broadcast and found that as it was clearly coming from Mr Hager’s perspective and other news bulletins signalled other views, the balance standard was not breached. The broadcast was not unfair to the NZDF. It is a government agency that can reasonably expect public scrutiny. In addition, comment from the Defence Minister was sought and included in later news bulletins. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

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....

A complaint that Malcolm Brenner was treated unfairly when interviewed for a segment on Dom, Meg and Randell about his previous sexual relationship with a dolphin has been upheld. MediaWorks interviewed Mr Brenner about his relationship with a dolphin but ultimately decided not to broadcast the interview in full. They did however broadcast a small segment of the interview in which one of the hosts called Mr Brenner ‘sick’ and stormed out of the interview. The Authority found that Mr Brenner was treated unfairly and was not adequately informed about the nature of his participation in the broadcast. In particular, he was misled into thinking a four minute version of the interview would be broadcast (rather than only the brief segment including the host’s reaction to him), when the final broadcast had already occurred....