Search Rapua

The Authority did not uphold two complaints that comments made by Mike Hosking during his Mike’s Minute segment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. Discussing two recent immigration policy decisions by the Government, Mr Hosking commented, ‘discrimination is no bad thing’ and, ‘Where do too many of the radicalised nutters come from? That particular part of the planet [Africa and the Middle East]. . . We don’t want to take the risk of a poor-ish person’s parent arriving – so why a jihadist? ’ The Authority acknowledged the complainants’ concerns that Mr Hosking’s choice of language was inflammatory. However, it found that in the context of the item, which carried public interest, the comments complained about were brief and moderated by the remainder of the item. Mr Hosking was expressing his genuinely held opinion on a legitimate issue, rather than being malicious or nasty....

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...

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-037:Ngaei and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1991-037 PDF727. 04 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-003 Dated the 29th day of January 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by TONY SIMPSON of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 80/94 Dated the 19th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D. LOW of Kaeo Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

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...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-032:Clements and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-032 PDF331. 3 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on The Detail that discussed Auckland Council efforts to monitor and improve the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches. The complaint was that the item failed to present alternative views, or test or challenge the views presented by Auckland Council representatives. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of information on the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches, and the broadcast approached the issue from a particular perspective, not purporting to be a balanced examination of the adequacy of Auckland Council efforts. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

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”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – item on changing population statistics of New Zealand – introduced with reference to the possibility of New Zealand becoming a republic – allegedly unbalancedFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – topic of republicanism not the controversial issue of public importance covered by the item – balance on that issue not required – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 26 April 2005 at 7. 20am on National Radio, an item on Morning Report covered changing population statistics in New Zealand, noting the expectation of continuing increases in Asian, Māori and Pacific Island communities. The introduction to the item included the statement “some believe this will fuel arguments to ditch the Queen as the head of State”....

Summary A representative of a beneficiaries’ organisation was interviewed on National Radio’s Nine to Noon on 21 July 1999 beginning at 9. 06am. The interview arose in the context of controversy surrounding the operation of Work and Income New Zealand. Mr Boyce complained to RNZ, the broadcaster, that the beneficiary representative was not treated fairly because he was not named in the introduction to the item. He contended that the interviewee was discriminated against because of his status as a beneficiary. RNZ provided a brief response in which it asserted that the interviewee had been dealt with fairly, and that it had acted in a socially responsible manner. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s response, Mr Boyce referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Worldwatch broadcast a three-part interview series with Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator, described as ‘one of the most powerful women in the Middle East’ and ‘a forceful advocate for Palestinian self-determination and peace in the Middle East’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the interviews amounted to support for terrorism, ‘[s]olely blame[d] Israel for all the Palestinian suffering’, and contained a number of inaccurate and misleading allegations about the Israel-Palestine conflict. The interviews did not contain several of the statements complained about, but were rather the complainant’s interpretation of what he considered Ms Ashrawi had implied. Other comments complained about were clearly Ms Ashwari’s opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about advice provided to a listener on Your Money with Mary Holm, because the complaint did not explicitly or implicitly identify any broadcasting standards breached by the broadcast. Declined Jurisdiction The item[1] On Your Money with Mary Holm, commentator, Mary Holm, provided advice to a listener, regarding the listener’s son's investment in KiwiSaver on the minimum wage. [2] The item was broadcast on 8 October 2018 on RNZ National. The complaint[3] Allan Golden complained that this advice was ‘improper’ for a young man on the minimum wage, saying: ‘propagating the idea that virtually everyone should be investing externally is most improper and should not be broadcast’....

ComplaintPlato’s Cave – promo at 4. 00pm – reference to sexual activity – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsPrinciple 1 Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Principle 7 Guideline 7b – audience research indicates minimal child audience – withdrawn This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the forthcoming Sunday drama, Plato’s Cave, was broadcast on National Radio at 4. 05pm on Thursday 20 September 2002. The promo included a request for a man to undress and to prepare for sex. [2] Jacqueline Grenfell complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast of the promo at that time was offensive and unsuitable for children. [3] In response, RNZ acknowledged that the promo was challenging but argued that, on balance, it did not breach the standards....

ComplaintArts Week on National Radio – interview with author – unbalancedFindingsPrinciple 4 – clearly author’s opinions – no controversial issue – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Frances Stonor Saunders, author of "Who Paid the Piper? : The CIA and the Cultural Cold War", was interviewed on Arts Week on National Radio at 10. 06am on 28 May 2000. In the interview she expounded her thesis that the CIA, with the approval and knowledge of the American government, had financed a campaign to export American culture and its ideals of liberalism and democracy to Western Europe during the Cold War. Grahame Meikle complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the interview was completely lacking in balance. The basis of his complaint, he said, was that listeners were not told of the author’s background, and her statements were uncritically accepted by the interviewer....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw – item contained an interview with Philip Zimbardo – interview discussed theories about why apparently good people do bad things in certain situations – host made reference to New Zealand psychiatric institutions and the fact that patients had made accusations that staff had abused them – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair The Authority’s DecisionPrinciple 4 (balance), Principle 5 (fairness), Principle 6 (accuracy) – complainant under a mistaken impression about the contents of the broadcast – complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 8 July 2007, Radio New Zealand National’s Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw programme held an extensive interview with psychologist Phillip Zimbardo, who had recently published his latest book "The Lucifer Effect"....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about an interview on Morning Report with ‘[a]n Iranian woman, living in New Zealand … shocked by the scale of attacks from Israel on Iran’. The complainant alleged the broadcast ‘presented a one-sided narrative critical of Israel’, and omitted significant viewpoints — namely, those of ‘pro-Israel Iranians’ — and vital context. The complainant also alleged the broadcast contained material inaccuracies, by indicating Israel targeted residential buildings and misled listeners regarding the Iranian regime and Israel’s intentions. The Authority found the broadcast was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The audience could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage....