Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview about housing market in Auckland – interviewer commented, “with section prices actually falling in some of the city’s outlying areas” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – host’s brief comment in the introduction was not a material point of fact in the context of the interview – comment would not have materially altered listeners’ understanding of the issues discussed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Nine to Noon, the host interviewed the chair of the Productivity Commission about the Commission’s recent report on housing affordability, provided to the Government in March 2012. The host introduced the interview as follows: Our next guest is here to talk about Auckland property prices going balmy. . ....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the All Night Programme on Radio New Zealand, the presenter used the expression ‘Thank Christ’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this was a ‘blasphemous expression’ which was highly offensive. The Authority followed its findings in previous decisions that expressions such as ‘Thank Christ’ are often used as exclamations and are not intended to be offensive. It was satisfied that in the context it was used by the presenter, the expression would not generally be considered to threaten current norms of good taste and decency. Not Upheld: Good Taste and DecencyIntroduction[1] During a segment on the All Night Programme, the presenter stated: I love trains, don’t you? I think it’s a shame what’s happened to some of the trains in New Zealand. Thank Christ we’ve got some left....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report featured an interview between presenter Kim Hill and a seismologist from GNS Science, following a 4. 3-magnitude earthquake the previous night. At the beginning of the interview, during a discussion of the seismologist’s initial reaction to the earthquake, Ms Hill said, ‘WTF’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘WTF’ in this broadcast was unacceptable and a breach of the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that, taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the nature of the programme, audience expectations of RNZ and Kim Hill, and the fact that the offensive word implied was not explicitly stated in the broadcast, the use of ‘WTF’ did not threaten community norms of taste and decency, or justify restricting the right to freedom of expression....

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  ...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-046 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by POWER FOR OUR FUTURE Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-186 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-047 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALAN LUCY of Havelock North Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-019:Clements and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-019 PDF712. 42 KB...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints on the basis they were trivial – one about a teaser for a Nights interview that allegedly mispronounced ‘Rhondda’, and one about a Checkpoint item that referred to England instead of the United Kingdom during a discussion about educational achievement of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Declined to Determine: Accuracy (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial)...

*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. ] A segment of Mediawatch canvassed TVNZ’s (as well as several other media outlets’) coverage of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, in particular Breakfast’s interview with Bryan Leyland, an engineer who speaks and writes publicly on his scepticism about global warming. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from Mr Leyland that the broadcast discussed his interview in a ‘biased and derogatory’ way and amounted to a personal attack. In the context of a programme comprising robust media commentary and critique, the references to Mr Leyland were not unfair and related to his professional capacity rather than criticising him personally....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven items on Morning Report contained references to greenhouse gas emissions, specifically agricultural emissions and the outcomes of discussions at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP 21). The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging it was inaccurate and unbalanced to state or infer that livestock emissions amount to half of New Zealand’s total emissions. The Authority found that references to the amount of livestock emissions in several of the items were not material points of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. In relation to the other items the Authority was satisfied that the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy as it drew on a range of reputable sources and scientific evidence in support of the statements made....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Nine to Noon programme included a segment featuring UK correspondent Dame Ann Leslie. In response to the host’s question ‘What is on your mind this week? ’, Dame Leslie commented on the British Labour Party, its leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Black Lives Matter UK organisation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Dame Leslie’s comments constituted an attack on Mr Corbyn, denigrated the BLM UK activists, and were inaccurate and unbalanced. Mr Corbyn and BLM UK were not treated unfairly, as both could reasonably expect to be subject to robust media scrutiny as a consequence of their public profile. While the item was a current affairs piece to which the balance standard applied, the issues were approached from Dame Leslie’s perspective and listeners would not have expected alternative views to be given....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An interview was broadcast on Saturday Morning with a British comedy writer and producer. Following a discussion about causing offence to audiences, the interviewee recalled his time as a radio host and a complaint he received from the Bishop of Oxford about a crucifixion joke. He could not remember the joke, and the presenter invited listeners to ‘. . . send in a series of very funny jokes about the crucifixion to see if we can approximate it’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s remark was against common decency and offensive to Christians. The remark was not intended to trivialise or make light of the act of crucifixion or the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and did not reach the threshold necessary to encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, the Christian community....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on Morning Report discussed a press release by a named investment banking firm. The Authority declined jurisdiction to accept and consider a complaint that the programme ought to have disclosed certain alleged conduct by that firm. The Authority found the broadcaster was correct to not accept this as a valid formal complaint, as the complaint was based on the complainant’s own opinion of the firm rather than raising issues of broadcasting standards within the broadcast. Declined Jurisdiction  Introduction[1] A segment on Morning Report discussed a press release from a named investment banking firm. [2] Allan Golden complained to the broadcaster RNZ that the segment breached the accuracy standard by omitting aspects of the firm’s alleged conduct and history that ought to have been disclosed to listeners....

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’....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that segments on the News and Morning Report reporting on a murder suicide breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority noted the public interest in the broadcasts and audience’s awareness of the need to exercise discretion during news programming to regulate what their children are exposed to. The Authority also found that the News bulletins covering the item did not reach the threshold necessary to require a warning and that the warning that preceded the Morning Report item was sufficient to enable audiences to make informed choices as to whether they, or children in their care, should listen to the broadcast. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, and Violence....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a promo for Checkpoint, broadcast after the 8am news on 11 May 2021, which included soundbites, showcasing the previous day’s news, concerning a supermarket stabbing in Dunedin. The complaint alleged the promo sensationalised news that was no longer current, suggesting another stabbing had occurred, and unnecessarily repeated scenes of violence when affected families were still suffering and children were likely to be listening. In its context, the Authority found the promo content was not likely to cause widespread undue offence or distress and did not breach the children’s interests standard. The programme information, violence and balance standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 16/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HOPE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on Morning Report discussing the possible boycott of the Tuia – Encounters 250 commemorations was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. The Authority found the item was balanced through the presentation of alternative perspectives and the existence of significant media coverage within the period of current interest. The Authority also found the broadcast did not contain any material inaccuracy with respect to Captain Cook’s first arrival in New Zealand. Finally, the Authority found the fairness standard did not apply as the complainant did not identify any person or organisation who took part in or was referred to in the broadcast who was treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...