Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief Nine to Noon segment discussing the latest developments in a site investigation at the former Ivon Watkins-Dow (Dow) chemical plant in Paritūtū, New Plymouth lacked balance and accuracy. Noting the nature of the programme, the perspectives included in it and other media, and that the period of current interest for issues at Paritūtū was ongoing, the Authority found reasonable efforts were made to present significant viewpoints. The Authority also found none of the matters alleged to be inaccurate or misleading were materially inaccurate or misleading in the context. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-028 Decision No: 1998-029 Dated the 26th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by GREEN SOCIETY Broadcaster RADIO 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 1989Checkpoint– item allegedly contained comments from Radio New Zealand’s economics reporter – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – broadcaster unable to locate any segment which matches the comments identified by the complainant – Authority therefore unable to assess broadcasting standards against those comments – Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Allan Golden made a formal complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) about a news item broadcast between 4pm and 5. 30pm on 11 July 2012....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview on Afternoons with Jesse Mulligan concerning the Gene Technology Bill breached the balance standard. The host interviewed a professor of biological sciences regarding the progress of the Bill, and whether reducing regulation around genetic modification in Aotearoa New Zealand was a good idea. The complainant considered the segment lacked balance as it only provided a viewpoint in favour of the Bill and genetic modification. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, referred to the existence of other perspectives, and the broadcaster had reported extensively on the issue, emphasising a range of different perspectives, within the period of current interest. Not Upheld: Balance...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Radio – Nine to Noon – interview with a grandmother campaigning against prescription of the drug Ritalin – grandmother not medically qualified made allegedly inaccurate statements – item allegedly unbalanced and unfair as it failed to present expert medical opinionFindings Principle 4 (balance) – personal perspective – balanced mainstream view – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – not relevant – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – mixture of fact and opinion – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Authority unable to establish number of people being prescribed Ritalin in New Zealand – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-086 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J B WILLIAMSON of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 57/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN S WERRY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-016 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HUGH BARR of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 131/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BILL NAIRN of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

SummaryA news item broadcast by National Radio at 6. 00pm on 5 November 1998 concerned an appeal against life imprisonment by one of Britain’s "Moors" murderers, Myra Hindley. In his letter of complaint to the broadcaster, Radio New Zealand Ltd, Mr Butler wrote that the item appeared to have been selected for broadcast because of its prurient nature and, as the murders were committed 30 years ago in England, he contended that they were no longer of any interest to New Zealanders. He expressed particular concern about what he believed to be gratuitous detail about the murders at the conclusion of the item. The concluding statement, he reported, had included the words "they tortured some of their victims and recorded their screams". RNZ advised that it did not consider Mr Butler’s letter of complaint to be a formal one....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 2/95 Dated the 24th day of January 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

ComplaintMediawatch – National Radio – allegedly offensive languageFindings Principle 1 – language not offensive – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An interview with former broadcaster Ron Sneddon about recent changes in the radio market was broadcast during Mediawatch on National Radio at about 9. 10am on Sunday 28 September 2003. [2] Miss Hadfield complained about “offensive content and swear words” during the interview, in which references were made to: “tits, bums and fart jokes” a radio station called “The Bitch”. [3] In response, RNZ declined to uphold the complaint on the basis that the language was not offensive in the context of the broadcast. [4] Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Miss Hadfield referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority does not uphold the complaint....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Midday Report segment on Charlie Kirk’s death, which included a recording of Kirk’s final interaction and the gunshot which killed him. The complainant considered it offensive and lacking in decency to broadcast Kirk’s final moments. In the context, including comments alerting listeners to the pending content, the Authority found it was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the Midday Report audience. Those who did not wish to listen were given a reasonable opportunity to turn the programme off. Noting the significant public interest in the segment, the Authority also found no harm justifying its intervention to limit the broadcaster’s freedom of expression. The privacy standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that action taken was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a statement in First Up that Israel had ‘always been adamant’ there would never be a Palestinian state. The Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision that the statement was materially inaccurate. However, it found the broadcaster complied with the accuracy standard requirement to correct material errors within a reasonable period, given its prompt broadcast of a correction. It also found the correction was not insufficient by virtue of having omitted additional context sought by the complainant. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Balance...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint was introduced by the newsreader saying, ‘The Māori Education Trust has had to sell its only assets – its farms – putting at risk the grants it is required to make to Māori students’. The item went on to discuss the financial history of the Trust. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the introduction was inaccurate in that the sale of the farms had actually improved the financial position of the Trust. The financial ‘risk’ alleged by the broadcast is not a fact able to be objectively determined, and the Trust was able to put forward its position in the item, so listeners would not have been misled....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A panel discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora suggested that fraud in the ‘Māori sector’ is often treated differently to other fraud. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the programme breached standards because the panellists should have made reference to the ‘2004 Feltex IPO fraud’ as an example of ‘non-Māori fraud’. The complainant’s concerns were matters of personal preference and editorial discretion, and the Authority’s decisions on previous complaints should have put him notice of the likely outcome of this complaint. Declined to Determine: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During a panel discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora, one of the topics was the criticism levelled at a Native Affairs investigation into the potential misappropriation of public funds by the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – items discussed results of a “clamp down” on drug-taking truck drivers in New Zealand and Australia – interviews with CEO of the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency and a representative of the union for road transport workers – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – consideration of whether drug-taking by truck drivers is a widespread problem in New Zealand, and the implications for road safety, did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – at this stage it is not an issue that has been widely discussed or debated publicly – broadcaster nevertheless provided some balance in the items – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported on tensions between the Horowhenua Rowing Club and certain local Māori residents over the future of the club’s use of the building next to Lake Horowhenua. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The item carefully conveyed a complex issue, was not factually inaccurate and would not have misled viewers in any material respect. While the conflict surrounding the rowing club’s presence at Lake Horowhenua is a controversial issue of public importance, the item included the viewpoints of both parties and was sufficiently balanced. The item did not treat the nominated individuals unfairly, as they were not criticised and had a reasonable opportunity to give their views....