Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In March and April 2017, RNZ ran a series of stories about an alleged lack of Ministry of Education (Ministry) funding, resources and support for Northland teachers struggling to cope with violent and disruptive children. A complaint was made to RNZ, on behalf of the Ministry, about a lack of fairness and balance in this coverage. RNZ responded and the complainant then referred the matter to the Authority on the basis that the Ministry was dissatisfied with RNZ’s response. RNZ’s position was that the Ministry’s original complaint was not a valid formal complaint, and therefore the Authority did not have jurisdiction to accept the referral....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about a series of Radio New Zealand broadcasts on 26 June 2020. The items concerned the Government’s management of COVID-19 at the international border, and referred to a series of events including the failure to test 55 individuals for COVID-19 before release from quarantine as ‘border blunders’, ‘bungling at the border’, and ‘COVID botch ups’. The Authority considered the statements were not of fact but of opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply, and the broadcasts were unlikely to mislead listeners. The Authority considered the assessment of the Government’s management of COVID-19 at the international border to be a controversial issue of public importance, but found alternative viewpoints were included to enable listeners to arrive at an informed opinion. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about an item on Nights, which discussed the New Zealand Book Council’s initiative to create a men’s book club, with the aim of encouraging more men to read books. Mr Golden complained that the item was inaccurate. He submitted that men should not be encouraged to read more books, as paper-based books were, for example, heavy, spread unwanted bacteria and could cause eye problems. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis that it was frivolous and trivial, and ordered the complainant to pay a reasonable portion of costs to the broadcaster to compensate for the time and resources spent in dealing with the complaint. Declined to Determine: Accuracy Order: Section 16(2)(a) – $100 costs to the broadcaster...

An episode of The Panel included an interview with a professor from the department of preventive and social medicine, whose focus is respiratory epidemiology, about his research on the effects of smoking cannabis on the lungs. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview breached the accuracy and balance standards. The Authority did not consider the accuracy standard applied as the interview was a short conversation about the findings of the study where the interviewee was clearly giving his own perspective and analysis, having conducted his own research on the topic. The Authority accepted that the wider debate about cannabis legalisation is a controversial issue of public importance, of which the interview was narrowly focussed on one aspect (the alleged health effects)....

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...

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...

Complaint Nine to Noon – interview with Dr Brian Edwards – broadcast did not distinguish between fact and opinion – RNZ’s editorial integrity and independence challenged FindingsPrinciple 6 – no standards issues raised – vexatious – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview by presenter Kim Hill of Dr Brian Edwards was broadcast on Nine to Noon on National Radio on 18 February 2000. Simon Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast did not distinguish clearly between fact and opinion and that RNZ had not ensured that editorial independence and integrity had been maintained. He contended that the interviewer had been involved in the negotiations about Dr Edwards’ programme, and had commented on whether Dr Edwards’ political role was compatible with his job as radio presenter....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interviewee said “Jesus” and “for Christ’s sake” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – words not used sensationally, or gratuitously repeated – fitted into the category of an exclamation of irritation or alarm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An interview with Derek Fox, the editor of Mana Magazine and a commentator on Māori issues, was conducted on Radio New Zealand National’s Nine to Noon programme on the morning of Thursday 15 February 2007. Mr Fox spoke about Māori achievement levels in the education system. At various points in the interview, Mr Fox used the expressions “Jesus” and “for Christ’s sake”....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Saturday Morning featured a segment in which presenter Kim Hill interviewed former MP and spokesperson for lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, Dr Don Brash, about the use of te reo Māori in New Zealand, specifically in RNZ broadcasting, without translation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Dr Brash challenging and critical questions, Dr Brash had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view, and listeners would not have been left misinformed with regard to Dr Brash’s position. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Dr Brash’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Dr Brash being treated unfairly....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the use of the term ‘booted out’, in reference to the Speaker of the House, Hon Trevor Mallard, ejecting the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Simon Bridges, from the House, was inaccurate. The Authority found there was no reason to suggest the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcasts complained about. The Authority found that the use of terms such as ‘booted out’ and ‘kicked out’, in reference to Members of Parliament who have been ordered by the Speaker of the House to leave the House, is common in New Zealand and therefore its use was unlikely to mislead or misinform listeners. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that quotes from the book ‘Everything is F*cked’ by Mark Manson, broadcast as part of a review of that book, breached the good taste and decency, programme information and violence standards. The Authority noted that the right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in their own words, provided this does not cause undue harm. In this case, the nature of the item was clearly signalled by the introduction, and the quotes were contextualised by the reviewer who was using them as examples to emphasise and support his criticism of the book. This enabled listeners to make an informed decision about their listening and that of children in their care....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview with ACT Party leader David Seymour, on the day of the final reading in Parliament of the End of Life Choice Bill, was unbalanced. The complainant submitted that Mr Seymour was given free licence to give his views from his perspective as the sponsor and a strong advocate of the Bill, and it was important that either someone with opposing views was also given an opportunity, or that the interviewer critically questioned him, given the item’s proximity to the final reading of the Bill. The Authority accepted that issues surrounding the Bill and the euthanasia debate more broadly amounted to a controversial issue of public importance that triggered the requirements of the balance standard....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-039 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R F ALLAN of Dunedin Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an interview with Hon Paul Goldsmith on Morning Report breached the balance and fairness standards. As the complaint did not specify a particular ‘controversial issue of public importance’ the balance standard did not apply. The Authority highlighted the value of robust political discourse and the vital role of media in encouraging and engaging in such discourse. Considering the nature of the programme and contextual factors, including the significant public interest in the interview and Mr Goldsmith’s experience in dealing with the media, the Authority did not find Mr Dann’s interview approach to be unfair. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints regarding an interview of American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler by Kim Hill. The interview discussed ‘the debate about who can be classified as a woman’ and used the term ‘TERF’, an acronym meaning trans exclusionary radical feminist, to describe those ‘who oppose transgender as a phenomenon and transgender rights more broadly’, particularly through excluding trans people from women-only spaces. The Authority found the broadcast was not discriminatory towards women and the term ‘TERF’ was used as part of a discussion of the debate and the expression of legitimately held opinion. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint that the broadcaster breached broadcasting standards for failing to broadcast the whole of the Director-General of Health’s briefing during the COVID-19 lockdown period. The Authority acknowledged the importance and value of the Director-General’s COVID-19 briefings particularly during the COVID-19 lockdown period. However, it found the complaint did not raise any issue of broadcasting standards capable of being resolved by the complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Programme Information  ...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint regarding a comment made by radio panellist Catherine Robertson about ‘murderous fantasies’, concerning punishment of an individual who escaped COVID-19 managed isolation. It was a satirical comment intended to be humorous and in line with audience expectations for the programme. The Authority noted satire and humour are important aspects of freedom of expression. It found limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion was not justified. Not Upheld: Violence, Law and Order, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Saturday Morning, in which host Kim Hill interviewed physician journalist and COVID-19 expert Dr Norman Swan. The complaint was that Dr Swan’s comments distinguishing between Long-Haul COVID-19 and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome normalised stigmatisation of the latter and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, but found the comments did not reach the high threshold of harm that justifies restricting freedom of expression under the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...