Search Rapua

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…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Afternoons featured an interview with the author of a recently published book about life in Scandinavia. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a statement in the introduction to the interview that two people were killed at a free speech forum in Copenhagen was inaccurate because one of the victims was killed at a synagogue. The segment was not news, current affairs or a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied. In any event, the statement did not constitute a material inaccuracy in the context of the item as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy Introduction[1] Afternoons featured an interview with the author of a recently published book, The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Morning Report discussed one Auckland individual’s challenge to Auckland Council to open a discussion about removing or altering a monument to Colonel Marmaduke Nixon in Ōtāhuhu. The item briefly summarised Colonel Nixon’s role in colonialism and in the Waikato land wars, including the invasion of Rangiaowhia. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance and was inaccurate in its account of the events at Rangiaowhia. The Authority found the item did not purport to provide a comprehensive examination of what occurred at Rangiaowhia. Rather, the item focused on one individual’s challenge to the Council to consider removing or altering the monument. In this context, it was not required in the interests of either balance or accuracy to present alternative accounts of the historical events....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about an interview between Kim Hill and Rt Hon Winston Peters regarding the relationship between New Zealand First and the Labour Party was not upheld. The complainant submitted the interview was unbalanced because Kim Hill’s interviewing of Mr Peters was ‘biased, rude and condescending’. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Mr Peters challenging and critical questions, Mr Peters had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Mr Peter’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Mr Peters being treated unfairly....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an episode of The Detail, where the host provided a correction to a comment made in a pre-recorded interview immediately after the comment. The Authority considered this sufficiently addressed the inaccuracy in the circumstances, and the way in which it was presented to the audience was an editorial decision open to the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

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 not upheld a complaint that a segment on Morning Report breached the discrimination and denigration, and accuracy standards. The report was about trans men and non-binary people missing out on notifications for cervical screenings, due to how gender and sex are recorded by health services. The Authority found that the discrimination and denigration standard was not breached as the terminology used was specifically chosen to be inclusionary rather than exclusionary, and the inaccuracies alleged by the complainant were immaterial to the broadcast as a whole. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration and Accuracy...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The Authority has not upheld complaints an interview on Saturday Morning between Kim Hill and Dr Kathleen Stock, a gender critical philosopher, breached broadcasting standards, including the discrimination and denigration, balance and accuracy standards. The broadcast discussed Dr Stock’s perspective on gender identity and her experiences resulting from voicing her perspective, having resigned from her position following a student campaign that accused her of transphobia. The Authority acknowledged the potential harm of the interview, but ultimately found the importance of freedom of expression outweighed any harm caused. The broadcast was clearly signalled as presenting Dr Stock’s perspective, to which she was entitled, and throughout the interview Hill challenged Dr Stock’s views, leaving the audience with a more balanced impression on the issue....

An episode of The Detail explored the Productivity Commission’s recommendation the Government review Aotearoa New Zealand’s regulatory framework around genetically modified organisms to ensure they remain fit for purpose. The complainant stated the broadcast was unbalanced and misleading as it, among other reasons, overemphasised the benefits of GMOs, did not critique the Commission, was inaccurate in several respects, and suggested issues with GMOs were largely ethical rather than scientific. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the broadcast was balanced, particularly as it was focusing on a single issue. It also found the broadcast was materially accurate and unlikely to mislead listeners. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item covering the Electricity Authority’s new trading rule breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The item was materially accurate, given its focus was the introduction of a new trading rule, motivated in part to address an undesirable trading situation (associated with Meridian Energy’s actions). It was not unfair to Meridian, as the programme was not inaccurate in how it presented Meridian’s contribution to the ‘revamped’ rule. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority found it had jurisdiction to determine a complaint about broadcasts on RNZ National, as the complainant’s original complaint to the broadcaster constituted a formal complaint under the Broadcasting Act 1989. While the broadcaster was of the view the complaint was not lodged under broadcasting standards, the Authority found it expressly or implicitly identified broadcasting standards allegedly breached by the broadcasts. Accepted jurisdiction...

The Authority has not upheld a direct privacy complaint about an interview on Morning Report following the stabbing of an Auckland dairy worker. The interviewee (the local Neighbourhood Support Coordinator) speculated about who the victim could be and gave information about the living arrangements of the family who operated the dairy. The Authority did not find any breach of the privacy standard in relation to the victim’s family, on the basis the information disclosed did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. It noted in any event that the identity of the victim was officially confirmed soon after, and reporting on the circumstances surrounding the stabbing carried high public interest. Not Upheld: Privacy...

SummaryAgnes-Mary Brooke, editor of the recently published first issue of "The Best Underground Press – Critical Review" was interviewed on Kim Hill, broadcast on National Radio at 10. 50am on 6 August 1999. Ms Brooke complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interviewer was rude and antagonistic. During the interview, she said, she had been dealt with unfairly and had not been given an opportunity to advance her opinions. Furthermore, she contended that there were some inaccuracies in the interviewer’s comments. Denying that there were any inaccuracies, RNZ maintained that Ms Brooke was not treated unfairly, and had been given an adequate opportunity to express her opinions. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Ms Brooke referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

The Authority has upheld an accuracy complaint about RNZ news bulletins broadcast on 19 and 20 April 2022 reporting on the Government’s apparent delay in ending the MIQ system, despite recently released public health advice from November 2021 noting that a changed risk assessment meant MIQ would no longer be justified. The Authority found the items were misleading by omission as they gave a strong impression the advice stated MIQ should be wound up immediately (rather than through a ‘carefully managed transition’ to safely shift to a new system), and the Government had acted contrary to that advice. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the balance standard. While finely balanced, noting the standard allows balance to be achieved over time, the Authority found RNZ’s later coverage (particularly on 20 April) adequately conveyed the Government’s perspective. Upheld: Accuracy. Not Upheld: Balance Order: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Morning Report with Sue Grey, lawyer for the parents of a baby whose urgent heart surgery had been delayed due to the parents’ concerns regarding blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19. The essence of the complaints was that the host did not listen to Grey, constantly interrupted her, did not allow her to answer the questions, and pushed his personal views. The Authority found the interview did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny that could reasonably be expected in an interview with Grey on this subject, noting in particular that Grey was making claims contrary to public health advice, and was able to put forward key points in the course of the eight-minute interview. Therefore the broadcast overall did not result in any unfairness to Grey....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of Mediawatch, which contained commentary on a recently released Media Council decision concerning an article about puberty blockers, breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found the programme was sufficiently balanced, noting its focus was on the Media Council’s decision (including its implications for journalists) and that it did not purport to be a balanced examination of the safety or reversibility of puberty blockers. It found alleged inaccuracies in the broadcast constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Taking into account the Media Council’s role as a public-facing organisation, the Authority noted it can reasonably expect its decisions to be subject to public scrutiny, and found the critique of its decision did not result in unfairness. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Story Time, involving a reading of ‘Sight for Sore Eyes’ followed by comments from the announcer, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The story was about a man in Eritrea suffering from trachoma, which was deteriorating his vision, who had his vision restored by a visiting eye doctor, Dr Fred Hollows. The announcer then recounted her, and a listener’s, experiences with the Fred Hollows Foundation. The complainant considered the broadcast used ableist language, implying blind people ‘require fixing’. The Authority found the language did not have this effect, was in keeping with the context of a fictional story about the treatment of preventable blindness, and did not carry any malice. Therefore the broadcast did not reach the threshold for breaching the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate and unfair to describe WikiLeaks as a ‘hacktivist’ organisation during a RNZ news bulletin reporting on a rise in hacktivism, and how hacktivists often work together with cyber-criminal groups. The Authority found that the term being used to describe Wikileaks was not a material inaccuracy, given WikiLeaks’ role in the hacktivist ‘ecosystem’. The Authority further found the report was not unfair to WikiLeaks or its founder. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...