Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Morning Report interview with Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer concerning the Israel/Gaza war. The complaint alleged the interview was unbalanced because no alternative perspective was presented to counter Ngarewa-Packer’s comments that Israel’s actions in Palestine amounted to genocide and apartheid, among other things, and that those statements were also inaccurate. The Authority acknowledged people may not agree with the terms used by Ngarewa-Packer during the interview and some would find them inflammatory, but ultimately found restricting the broadcaster’s and Ngarewa-Packer’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report covered a truce between Israel and Hamas during the Gaza conflict. A Palestinian rights activist and an Israeli spokesman were interviewed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced because more air time was given to the Palestinian view, and because no significant point of view was presented from an equivalent Israeli activist. There is no requirement for mathematically equal time to be given to competing perspectives on controversial issues. Sufficient efforts were made during the broadcast to showcase the Israeli, as well as the Palestinian, perspective. Further, listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of a range of views on the Gaza conflict given the extensive and ongoing coverage of this issue....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Morning Report contained two items about the Government’s proposal for a specific criminal charge for family violence. A number of family violence experts were interviewed, and the introduction to one of the items stated that ‘14 women, six men and 10 children’ are killed by family violence annually. The Authority upheld a complaint that this statistic was inaccurate because the broadcaster’s source was significantly outdated, and it was part of the introduction which framed the discussion. However, the Authority did not uphold the aspect of the accuracy complaint that the items were misleading because they implied that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and women almost always victims of family violence....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-027:Noble and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-027 PDF163. 37 KB...

SummaryA news report on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report on 20 November 1998 at about 7. 30am stated: "In Israel more land is to be handed over to the Palestinians". Ms Zarifeh, on behalf of the Wellington Palestine Group, complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the report was inaccurate. She pointed out that the land in question was not in Israel, but was illegally occupied by Israel. It was wrong, she continued, to convey the impression that Israel was somehow being generous in giving the land away. The Group had complained about such inferences in reporting on a number of occasions in the past, she noted, and it was unfortunate that RNZ had "resumed the practice of mislabelling the boundaries of the Middle East....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report discussed Mark Lundy's retrial for the murder of his wife and daughter. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item incorrectly inferred that Mr Lundy had actively been seeking increased life insurance on the day the murders occurred, and that this was unfair. The item was a straightforward report of the latest evidence given at trial and the item as a whole clarified the meaning of its opening statements. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Law and Order, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Morning Report discussed Mark Lundy's retrial for the murder of his wife and daughter. The item reported that 'Mark Lundy's retrial has been told that he tried to increase his family's life insurance just hours before his wife and daughter were hacked to death'....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – news item reported on controversial comments made by Breakfast presenter, Paul Henry, about Chief Minister of Delhi and New Zealand’s Governor-General – comments about Chief Minister re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – legitimate news report – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on Morning Report, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National at 6. 38am on 8 October 2010, reported on controversial comments made by television presenter, Paul Henry, on Breakfast....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview between host Kim Hill and John Tamihere, Chief Executive of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report breached broadcasting standards. It found the interview did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, noting that the robust nature of the interview was in line with audience expectations of RNZ and Hill. It also found the balance standard was not breached on the basis that Tamihere was given sufficient time to express his views and, given other media coverage, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other perspectives regarding how to best increase Māori vaccination rates. It further found that Tamihere was not treated unfairly during the interview. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance and Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with complainant about a possible ban on pseudoephedrine – followed by interview with a GP – interviewer told GP that complainant had suggested that over-the-counter pharmaceuticals containing pseudoephedrine were not the main source of supply for makers of “P” – similar statement made in News item broadcast after the interview – interviewer’s comment and News item allegedly misrepresented Minister’s comments – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Principle 4 (balance) – different views expressed – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Minister’s comment accepted as implication initially – later broadcast as fact – inaccurate – upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-010:Odinot and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-010 PDF426. 74 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview on Morning Report with the new leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon MP breached the discrimination and denigration standard. During the interview, Luxon was asked questions around his Christian beliefs and the impact of these beliefs on his political views on abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. The Authority was satisfied the interview did not contain anything that encouraged discrimination against, or denigration of, people of Christian faith. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-076:Ryall MP and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-076 PDF545. 05 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two interviews on Morning Report, which explored the propriety of funding for a campaign to encourage Māori to register on the Māori electoral roll, breached the balance and accuracy standards. The complainant said the interviews with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, Chair of the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency (WOCA) which funded the campaign, and with Hon Shane Jones, who was asked to comment on the issue, displayed ‘anti-Māori bias’. Noting the broadcast incorrectly stated WOCA was a government agency, the complainant also said listeners would be left with an impression there was corruption taking place based on a false assumption. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as significant perspectives about the advertising campaign were presented in the broadcast and in other media within the period of current interest....

Summary There was controversy over the government’s proposal to enact legislation dealing with crimes of home invasion, according to news reports and an extended news item on Radio New Zealand Ltd’s Morning Report programme broadcast on 23 June 1999 at 7. 00am, 7. 30am, 7. 40am and 9. 00am. The former Justice Minister was said to be willing to admit that the bill had "some flaws". Hon Tony Ryall, Minister of Justice, complained that the reports were inaccurate when they reported that Sir Douglas Graham, the former Minister of Justice, "had admitted the bill was flawed". Mr Ryall advised that he had spoken to Sir Douglas, who confirmed that he had not made the remarks attributed to him. RNZ acknowledged that Sir Douglas had not used the word "flawed". However, it argued, the phrase was used accurately to reflect Sir Douglas’s view that the bill had limitations....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an item on Morning Report misrepresented the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s views responding to iwi concerns about groundwater issues, including why local streams were drying up, and did not properly examine the complexity of the issues. The Authority found no breach of the balance standard as the item focused on one aspect of the issue and was clearly presented from the iwi’s perspective, and there is ongoing coverage of various viewpoints on the topic. Not Upheld: Balance...

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview with a delegate of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. The complainant alleged that the interview was unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate as the host was rude, offensive, underprepared and did not allow her to read from a prepared statement. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard as, among other reasons, the interviewee was a delegate from a large union, who can be expected to handle robust questioning. The other standards raised either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

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....

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....