Search Rapua

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

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....

The Authority has upheld two complaints from Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH) about two items on ThreeNews reporting concerns about ASH, including alleged conflicts of interest and its stance on vaping. The Authority agreed the first item (26 July 2024), presented as a ‘special investigation’ into concerns about alleged links between ASH and the ‘pro-vaping’ lobby in Australia, breached the fairness, balance and accuracy standards: the reporter did not fairly inform ASH about the nature of the story or ASH’s contribution to it; ASH’s comments on the issues were not fairly presented, meaning the item was unbalanced; and, collectively, a number of statements and the presentation of ASH’s position created a misleading and unfairly negative impression of ASH....

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with medical researcher about the effectiveness of treatment by chiropractors – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – programme presented researcher as authoritative – he made a number of inaccurate statements – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 9 March 2009, one of the presenters interviewed a medical researcher, Dr Shaun Holt, about the effectiveness of chiropractors. Dr Holt said that chiropractors were “as good as conventional medicine” for treating back pain, although conventional medicine was not particularly effective because back pain was very hard to treat. He said “by all means see a chiropractor, they may well help,” but that many claimed to treat other medical conditions and research showed that chiropractic was not beneficial for those conditions....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Kaea – item reported that colostrum from cows’ milk was being used to cure a variety of illnesses – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item reported a new product which was claimed to be a cure for a wide variety of illnesses – discussed a controversial issue of public importance – no alternative viewpoints were presented which questioned the product’s effectiveness or the scientific proof behind it – unbalanced – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – reporter adopted the position put forward in the story that colostrum was a miracle cure – news was not impartial – viewers would have been misled – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – discussed “the model who can’t go to fashion week because she’s too big” – interviewed the model and her mother as well as the manager of her modelling agency – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created clear impression that Nova was not putting forward the model for work because of her hip size – viewers would have been misled by the omission of other reasons including the model’s refusal to work for Nova – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not deny that Nova’s manager explained the other reasons in his interview – those reasons were not included in the story – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on one individual – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host stated that the BSA had not upheld a complaint from Māori Television about his comments criticising the channel – stated that Māori Television was “apartheid” and “racist” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that BSA had not upheld the complaint when it had not yet considered the complaint – inaccurate to refer to Māori Television as Te Karere – upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 25 July 2006 at approximately 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with complainant about a possible ban on pseudoephedrine – followed by interview with a GP – interviewer told GP that complainant had suggested that over-the-counter pharmaceuticals containing pseudoephedrine were not the main source of supply for makers of “P” – similar statement made in News item broadcast after the interview – interviewer’s comment and News item allegedly misrepresented Minister’s comments – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Principle 4 (balance) – different views expressed – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Minister’s comment accepted as implication initially – later broadcast as fact – inaccurate – upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – report on Crown compensation to Ngati Rua-Nui says many killed at invasion of Parihaka – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster as breach of standard G1 – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 1 March 2001 reported on an agreement for an apology and monetary compensation between the Ngati Rua-Nui people of South Taranaki, and the Crown. The reporter concluded the item with the following statement: Several hundred thousand acres were confiscated from Ngati Rua-Nui in the 1860s, and many were killed during the invasion of Parihaka. Colin Robertson and Liam Wright complained separately to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the item was inaccurate. They said there had been no deaths in the invasion of Parihaka....

Complaint Holmes – series of items on the "brain drain" – Richard Poole – newspaper advertisement – Business Roundtable backing – unbalanced – news source lacked integrity FindingsStandard G6 – items lacked balance – broadcaster not impartial – Poole’s integrity not forcefully challenged – uphold Standard G15 – Poole an "information source" as required by standard – broadcaster failed to ascertain adequately his integrity/reliability – uphold OrdersBroadcast of statement$2,000 costs to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items broadcast on the Holmes show on TV One on 4, 5 and 6 October 2000 dealt with a perceived "brain drain" whereby young, educated New Zealanders were allegedly leaving New Zealand permanently for better jobs and an enhanced lifestyle overseas. Holmes is broadcast between 7. 00pm and 7. 30pm on weekdays....

SummaryThe sum of $90 million had been granted by the government to start a Maori television station, reported the breakfast host of the talkback session broadcast on Radio Pacific between 6. 00–9. 00am on 20 May 1998. He referred to this figure on a number of occasions even when advised by a guest, the Opposition Spokesperson on Broadcasting, that the correct figure was $19 million. Ms Thompson complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that the broadcast was inaccurate, unbalanced, deceptive and failed to respect the principles of partnership between Maori and Pakeha. Explaining that the host was confused between the figure given for the Maori television station and the public broadcasting fee, Radio Pacific upheld the complaint about inaccuracy. It apologised and offered to broadcast an explanatory statement. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint....

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

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 64/95 Decision No: 65/95 Dated the 20th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEGAVITAMIN LABORATORIES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED and DR WARREN STEWART of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R A Barraclough Co-opted member...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about new pricing structures for national calls at Telecom – graphic stated $0. 08c per minute on national calls – correct price $0. 18c per minute – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic inaccurate – significant mistake requiring correction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6:00pm on 26 August 2004, contained an item on new pricing structures at Telecom for national calls. During the item, a graphic noted the following: “Anytime Plan” National Calling: $0. 08c per minute National Capped: $2. 75 (up to two hours) Home to Mobile: $0. 48c calls to 027 & 025, $0. 55c calls to 021 & 029 [2] The correct price for national calls was in fact $0. 18c per minute....

The majority of the Authority upheld (in part) a complaint about a segment on Marae discussing the bounds of the right to freedom of expression, in the wake of Posie Parker’s ‘Let Women Speak’ events. The complaint argued the segment was unbalanced, disproportionately favouring views of participants against the events, and inaccurate in multiple respects. The Authority found the segment adequately presented significant viewpoints through the inclusion of multiple guests, through the host’s questioning and in the introductory segment. The Authority considered most of the alleged inaccuracies were unlikely to have significantly affected viewers’ understanding of the broadcast as a whole. The majority found one of the comments in the broadcast (relating to the characterisation of Parker) was materially inaccurate and this issue created harm sufficient to justify a restriction on the right to freedom of expression. Upheld by Majority: Accuracy, Not Upheld: Balance No Order...

The Authority has upheld two complaints concerning the accuracy of a brief 1News item on 15 November 2024 about heightened security in Paris following violence the previous week around a football match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv in Amsterdam. The item reported, ‘Thousands of police are on the streets of Paris over fears of antisemitic attacks…That's after 60 people were arrested in Amsterdam last week when supporters of a Tel Aviv football team were pursued and beaten by pro-Palestinian protesters. ’ TVNZ upheld the complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis the item ‘lacked the nuance’ of earlier reporting on the events, by emphasising the ‘antisemitic’ descriptor while omitting to mention the role of the Maccabi fans in the lead-up to the violence. The Authority agreed with this finding and further found the action taken by TVNZ was insufficient....

The Authority has upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement, ‘Public submissions for Phase Two of the Inquiry closes at midnight tonight’, in a 1News item reporting on the deadline for submissions to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the statement was materially inaccurate as the correct deadline was the following night and, in the context of the broadcast, this was a material point of fact. The COVID-19 Inquiry’s communications regarding the deadline for public submissions could have been clearer, but TVNZ did not make reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. It relied on information from official press releases and communications by the Inquiry but did not seek clarification of the ambiguous deadline from a relevant person/organisation....