Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Morning Report which briefly discussed soil contamination at, and the possible repurposing of, a chemical plant site in Paritutu, New Plymouth. The complainant, an interviewee on the broadcast, argued the item misrepresented likely contamination levels by citing test results from outside of the plant site, and through a comment that the site was cleaner than that at Mapua. The Authority found the statements complained about either were not materially inaccurate, or were clearly distinguishable as opinion, to which the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply. The broadcast was unlikely to mislead listeners. The balance and fairness standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Saturday Morning featured an interview with a filmmaker about his recent documentary Going Clear about the Church of Scientology. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced, unfair and biased against the Church. The focus of the interview was the filmmaker's perspective and his experience making the film; it did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required a balancing viewpoint to be presented. The nature of the programme was such that the broadcaster was not required in the interests of fairness to inform the Church prior to broadcast or invite its comment in response....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a Nine to Noon interview discussing the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill breached the balance and fairness standards. The item included interviews with current and former Children’s Commissioners, who were both generally opposed to the proposed legislation. As the item was clearly signalled as coming from a particular perspective, and the existence of other perspectives was indicated within the broadcast, the Authority found there was no need to include other perspectives within the item itself. In the circumstances it was unlikely listeners would have been left uninformed or unaware there were other perspectives on the issue. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a complaint that an interview with Sir Andrew Dillon, the CEO of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that listeners were invited by the item to draw negative comparisons between the role and functions of NICE and of PHARMAC in the New Zealand context, which was misleading through the omission of relevant contextual information about the two agencies. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the balance standard, as inviting a comparison of the two agencies did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue to which the balance standard applied....

ComplaintNine to Noon – National Radio – review of events – political editor’s comment – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 6 – editorial opinion – principle not applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] RNZ’s political editor (Al Morrison) reviewed events during the week of 6–10 May in a segment broadcast on Nine to Noon between 9. 45–10. 00am on 10 May 2002. The review is broadcast weekly and, on this occasion, he referred to a speech by the Minister of Labour in which, he said, the Minister said that "the basic shape of the income system" had not changed for some years. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was factually inaccurate....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Allan Golden complained about two segments broadcast on RNZ’s Morning Report and Nine to Noon programmes. The Authority declined jurisdiction to accept and consider the complaints. The Authority found it was open to the broadcaster to not accept these as valid formal complaints, on the grounds the complaints were based on the complainant’s own opinions of what the broadcasts should include, rather than raising issues of broadcasting standards. Declined Jurisdiction  Introduction[1] Allan Golden lodged two separate complaints with RNZ National about an item broadcast during Morning Report on 20 November 2017, and an item broadcast during Nine to Noon on 2 November 2017....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on RNZ’s Sunday Morning programme with the author of the book, The Final Choice, in the lead-up to the binding referendum on the End of Life Choice Act. The End-of-Life Choice Society complained that the interview was unbalanced and inaccurate, as it presented the book as ‘the truth’, and did not question the author’s independence or her alleged religious affiliations. The Authority noted its role is limited to applying the relevant broadcasting standards and guidelines, and determining whether any harm was caused which outweighed the right to freedom of expression; it is not the Authority’s role to determine whether the author is ‘independent’, or to determine her personal view on the topic....

Warning: This decision contains language some readers may find offensive.   The Authority has not upheld a complaint under multiple standards about an episode of “It’s Personal with Anika Moa”, including the f-word and other swear words.  In the context, including the ‘colourful language’ warning preceding the broadcast, the Authority found it was unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress, and audiences were provided with sufficient opportunity to protect children in their care from hearing inappropriate content.  The Authority also found the swearing was unlikely to promote the behaviours contemplated under the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour standard. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Morning Report reported on a New Zealand Defence Force exercise in Hawkes Bay which involved visiting local schools. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and in the nature of ‘propaganda’. This was a brief news report about the army exercise and the school visits, and the fact it reflected positively on the NZDF did not automatically trigger the requirement to present alternative viewpoints. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues Introduction [1] An item on Morning Report reported on a New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) exercise and was introduced as follows: War has broken out in Hawkes Bay, but the bullets being fired are blanks. Several hundred defence force personnel are conducting war games in different parts of the region as part of an intentional training exercise....

Summary In an item concerning the plight of ethnic Albanian refugees it was reported, in a broadcast on National Radio on 17 September 1998 at 6. 12pm, that they had been prevented by the Serbian army from returning to Albania and were unwelcome in Macedonia to the south. The secretary for the Greek Orthodox Community of Wellington and Suburbs Inc complained on its behalf to Radio New Zealand Ltd that it was inaccurate, and in direct contravention of a UN resolution, to describe the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia simply as Macedonia. It also complained that RNZ had failed to show balance, impartiality and fairness in its presentation of the item. In its response, RNZ pointed out that controversy still existed over the name of the country and it contended that no inaccurate understanding had been conveyed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two RNZ broadcasts, a week apart — Morning Report and The Detail — about New Zealand’s low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines were unbalanced and inaccurate. The Authority found that any inaccuracies regarding Canada’s alcohol guidelines were not material in the context of the overall broadcasts. With respect to balance, the Authority found the Morning Report broadcast was clearly signalled as focussing on one aspect of the much larger, complex debate on alcohol policy. Although the complainant was mentioned once during Morning Report, in the context the audience would not have expected a countering viewpoint to be presented from the complainant or the industry. The Detail carried significant public interest and sufficiently alerted listeners to alternative perspectives through a comment from the Executive Director of the New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council and the host’s use of ‘devil’s advocate’ questioning. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a story called “A Hāngī for my Birthday,” which was read out on Storytime on RNZ National, breached the children’s interests and offensive and disturbing content standards. The story was told from the perspective of a young child whose birthday was that day, and who helped his family prepare a hāngī for dinner. The complaint was that a part of the story where the family buy and kill hens to cook in the hāngī was unsuitable for children. The Authority acknowledged the story contained challenging themes on where meat comes from and that some of the descriptions, including the hens in cages, and being pulled out by the legs and stuffed in boxes, alluded to possible mistreatment of the animals....

The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about a segment on Nine to Noon because the complaint did not explicitly or implicitly identify any broadcasting standards breached by the broadcast. Declined Jurisdiction...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview with a delegate of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. The complainant alleged that the interview was unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate as the host was rude, offensive, underprepared and did not allow her to read from a prepared statement. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard as, among other reasons, the interviewee was a delegate from a large union, who can be expected to handle robust questioning. The other standards raised either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint the use of the term ‘iTaukei’ to refer to indigenous Fijians breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In light of the Authority’s previous finding that a similarly innocuous use of the term did not breach broadcasting standards, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview with Dame Jacinda Ardern on RNZ National, in which presenter Jesse Mulligan used the word ‘prick’ when asking Ardern about a past comment she made in Parliament. The complaint alleged the use of this language breached multiple standards. The Authority found it was low-level language that would not have surprised or offended most listeners in the context or alarmed or distressed any children who happened to be listening. The remaining standards did not apply.   Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal and Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Interlocutory application for disclosure of additional material – broadcast of allegations by an anonymous interviewee on Nine to NoonDecision on interlocutory applicationRequest for production of field tape – already offered by broadcaster – decline to determineRequest for disclosure of interviewee’s name – not required in order for Authority to determine complaints – declinedRequest for production of all relevant pre-broadcast records and documents, and emails received after the broadcast – not required in order for Authority to determine complaints – declinedThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Factual Background[1] On 12 May 2005, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, National and Act Members of Parliament accused then Associate Minister of Education, the Hon David Benson-Pope, of bullying students while he was teaching at Dunedin’s Bayfield High School in the 1980s. [2] Mr Benson-Pope categorically denied the allegations....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday Morning with Wallace Chapman, titled ‘Abortion and Civil Liberties – the Thames Stand-Off’, discussed ‘pro-life’ protestors, Voice for Life, and their longstanding protests outside Thames Hospital. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter was biased and that his treatment of the ‘pro-life’ representative was negative, unfair and unbalanced in comparison to his treatment of the ‘pro-choice’ representative. The Authority found that Mr Chapman’s treatment of the interviewees did not result in an unbalanced broadcast, as both perspectives on the debate were adequately put forward during the programme. While Mr Chapman’s questioning of the ‘pro-life’ representative was robust, his criticisms related to the Voice for Life group as a whole, and he did not attack the interviewee personally or come across as abusive towards her, such that she was treated unfairly....