Search Rapua

An item on RNZ’s Midday Report covering reports of violence against protesters at Kennedy Point Marina included interviews with a protester, and the developer of the site. The Authority has not upheld a complaint the item breached the balance and fairness standards. The Authority found the item presented a reasonable range of perspectives and developer Kitt Littlejohn was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present his point of view. Given the level of public interest in the item, Mr Littlejohn, in his position, could reasonably expect the media’s scrutiny and the programme was unlikely to leave listeners with an unduly negative impression of him. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has made the following directions in respect of the Waikato District Health Board’s referral: declined to accept the two affidavits submitted as part of the WDHB’s complaint invited the WDHB to provide alternative evidence to support its complaint referral, with reference to the formats outlined at paragraph [8] by 24 January 2022 asked RNZ to identify information it wishes to rely on by 24 January 2022, and the WDHB to provide confirmation as to whether such information is in dispute or can be accepted as correct within a further 10 working days invited any further comment from the parties regarding the management of these issues by 24 January 2022....

The Authority declined to determine two complaints regarding broadcasts by Radio New Zealand. The first complaint related to a segment on the Five O’Clock Report which featured an interview with National Party MP Mark Mitchell. The second complaint related to a segment on the Morning Report featuring an interview with then leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges. Robert Terry complained that the Five O’Clock Report segment contained biased coverage and that the Morning Report segment required balance.  The Authority found that the complaints did not relate to the content of the broadcast and were not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. Declined to Determine: Balance...

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 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 that a statement on RNZ National that the new Government ‘plans to repeal Smokefree legislation to fund tax cuts’ breached the accuracy and balance standards. The Authority found the accuracy standard was not breached noting other content within the broadcast and interviews with National Party members before the programme meant audience members were unlikely to be misled. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Checkpoint report breached the accuracy and balance standards by stating attacks against 5G cell towers internationally were due to ‘widely debunked conspiracy theories, linking telecommunications technology to illness, including COVID-19’.  The Authority found the statement was unlikely to significantly affect listeners’ understanding of the segment and the balance standard did not apply, as the broadcast was not a discussion regarding the safety of 5G technology.   Not Upheld: Accuracy and Balance...

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 Authority1 has not upheld a complaint that interviews on The Detail discussing a ‘power imbalance’ between retirement village operators and residents breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The complainant alleged the broadcast was unbalanced and unfair as it did not provide an alternative perspective from a retirement village operator or the industry, and the statement, ‘operators are just sitting on the weekly fee’, was inaccurate. The Authority found the broadcast was signalled as coming from a particular point of view and viewers were unlikely to expect a countering perspective in the broadcast. The Authority also found the alleged inaccurate statement was clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion and was not materially misleading. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 115/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BARRY MAGUIRE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item briefly described a ruling of the International Court of Justice in relation to Israel’s actions in Rafah, and an academic’s perspective on the potential reaction of the international community. The complainant argued other perspectives and information should have been included, the description of the ruling was inaccurate, and the various statements, omissions and inaccuracies contributed to breaches of multiple standards. The Authority found the brief item did not constitute a ‘discussion’, so the balance standard did not apply. With regard to accuracy, the Authority found the description of the ruling was reasonable and the broadcaster had exercised reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. It also found the academic’s reference to ‘attacking’ by Israel constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and was materially accurate....

ComplaintNine to Noon – listeners’ comments broadcast about Hormone Replacement Therapy – some suggested soy products as an alternative to HRT – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4 – observation in passing about range of views made known to the broadcaster did not support the use of soy – no uphold CommentComplainant need not have heard/viewed programme complained about before making complaint – complaint must comply with s. 6 of the Broadcasting Act – broadcaster must have process in place to deal with formal complaints This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) was one of the matters discussed on Nine to Noon, presented by Linda Clark and broadcast on National Radio between 9. 00am and noon on 17 July 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Arts on Sunday an audio clip from a movie being reviewed was broadcast, in which a character from the movie said ‘frigging’. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that this low level language breached standards of good taste and decency. It was fleeting and innocuous and broadcast as part of a movie review targeted at adults....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by a political panellist on Nine to Noon, including that National Party public meetings were ‘full of angry racists saying angry racist things’ breached broadcasting standards. While the Authority acknowledged the statement was inflammatory, it found the statements were hyperbole and political comment and opinion, and they were challenged immediately by another panellist – meaning listeners were unlikely to be misled, and given sufficient viewpoints to form their own opinions. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

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....