Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Sunday breached the complainant’s privacy, and was unfair to the complainant, by broadcasting an image taken on the complainant’s property. The Authority found the complainant was not identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard, and was not ‘referred to’ in the broadcast for the purposes of the fairness standard. Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on the verdict of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in the United States breached broadcasting standards. The complainant considered the item inaccurate and unbalanced as it allegedly misrepresented events around the trial including the origins of the protest, the presiding Judge, and the public’s response to the verdict. The Authority considered the broadcast was materially accurate given its focus on the verdict from the trial. Any inaccuracies were unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item. The balance and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply, and the fairness standard was not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, 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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-099 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE ROWAN PARTNERSHIP of Wanganui Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

ComplaintOne News – Olympic competitors banned for drug use – athlete Marion Jones suspected – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – not applicable Standard G4 – report on speculation not unfair – no uphold Standard G5 – speculation not illegal – no uphold Standards G14, G19 and G21 – not applicable This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Under the heading "Drug Cheats", a promo for Holmes broadcast on TV One on 28 September 2000 questioned whether athlete Marion Jones and swimmer Inge de Bruijn had taken performance-enhancing drugs before the Olympic Games in Sydney. John O’Neill complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the allegations required an explanation. He said he had not heard anything to link athlete Marion Jones to drugs, and he wondered where TVNZ had got its information, and whether the allegation was justified....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on the cats of Zion Wildlife Garden in Whangarei and the organisation’s desire to reverse declawing operations on some of their cats – included comments about former manager Craig Busch in relation to the decision to declaw the cats – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – zoo consultant’s comments were opinion – statement that Mr Busch convinced authorities had a reasonable basis – complainant did not provide evidence to disprove statements about inbreeding or limping tiger – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Busch invited to participate – item included a response from Mr Busch – broadcaster dealt with Mr Busch and ZWG fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-079 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JENNY HALE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Overgrown – cannabis law reform-themed radio show advocated cannabis use – host referred to a phone call from a general practitioner and made comments about the views he allegedly expressed – allegedly in breach of standards relating to law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not named and unlikely to be identified from the limited information broadcast – host’s comments did not reach the necessary threshold to be considered unfair to the complainant – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – while the programme encouraged and promoted cannabis use this was in the spirit of protest and to promote law reform – value of speech important – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – Overgrown was not a “factual programme” to which the standard applied – show was opinion-based and…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-120:Moffatt-Vallance and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-120 PDF383. 9 KB...

Two complaints about a report on ‘explosive scenes at Parliament’ including a comment from Willow Jean Prime MP that statements from the National Party ‘really sound[ed] like “she asked for it, her skirt was too short. She was drunk”’ were not upheld. The Authority found the omission of Ms Prime’s subsequent withdrawal of the statement was not material to the story, and her specific comment was opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The balance standard did not apply as the statement did not concern a controversial issue of public importance, and there was no unfairness to the National Party. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Balance...

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....

During a broadcast of Mike Hosking Breakfast, Hosking discussed his predictions for the upcoming Hamilton West by-election, commenting that Dr Gaurav Sharma would be the ‘biggest loser’ and stating he was a ‘nobody. ’ Later in the programme, Hosking discussed the Broadcasting Standards Authority’s (our) recently released annual report, commenting the BSA is ‘a complete and utter waste of time. ’ The complainant alleged these comments breached multiple broadcasting standards. In the context of the broadcast, the Authority found Hosking’s comments were not likely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and did not result in any unfairness to Dr Sharma or the BSA. The discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and privacy standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

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 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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 37/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KIM TAYLOR of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-105 Dated the 14th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MELANIE SMITH and TERESA SAMMUT-SMITH of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 158/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LLOYD MINCHINGTON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...