Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 98/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BARRY BARCLAY of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

ComplaintNational Radio – Nine to Noon – book reading from novel "Baby No-Eyes" – broadcast repeated – explicit sex instruction from young boy to sister – bad taste FindingsPrinciple 1 – material not offensive in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A reading from the novel "Baby No-Eyes" by Patricia Grace was broadcast on National Radio’s Nine to Noon show, beginning at 10. 30am on a weekday during April or May 2001. The broadcast was repeated at the same time on the following day. M R Ross complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that she was "horrified" to hear "an explicit sex instruction from a young boy to his little sister" during a book reading she said was broadcast on 9 May 2001, and then repeated on 10 May 2001. RNZ did not uphold the complaints....

SummaryAustralian author Kathy Lette was interviewed on National Radio’s Nine to Noon programme at about 11. 30am on 30 November 1998, and discussed "her fast fire novels about sex and love and cellulite. "Mr Mauger complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the content of the interview, with its emphasis on sex, was offensive. He emphasised that the subject matter was inappropriate for children as well as for a general audience. In its response, RNZ reported that the language used was in the context of the review of a literary work, and in its view was not gratuitously shocking, tasteless or in contravention of decency. In addition, it noted, the context was expressed by the interviewer in her introduction to the review. RNZ declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s response, Mr Mauger referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

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....

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...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 National Radio – Nine to Noon – joint interview with organiser of anti-racism march in Christchurch and leader of National Front – complainant alleged that interview on National Radio gave National Front credibility and legitimacy – item allegedly unbalanced and unfair as National Front not legitimate commentator on immigration issuesFindings Principle 4 (balance) – programme presented both sides of debate – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – programme not unfair to identifiable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon on 10 May 2004 the presenter (Linda Clark) conducted a joint interview with the organiser of an anti-racism march in Christchurch, Mr Lincoln Tan, and the organiser of a National Front counter-march, Mr Kyle Chapman....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Nine to Noon host interviewed Carmel Fisher, the founder and managing director of Fisher Funds Management Ltd, about her background and attitudes to business. At the end of the interview, she asked her about recent court action over a family will. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that a comment made by Ms Fisher about her role in the proceedings was inaccurate. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the programme was unfair. The Authority did not make any order. Upheld by Majority: AccuracyNot Upheld: FairnessNo OrderIntroduction[1] On 14 March 2013 on Radio New Zealand National Nine to Noon, the host interviewed Carmel Fisher. Ms Fisher is the founder and managing director of Fisher Funds Management Ltd....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview about legislation change to introduce paying the minimum wage to disabled people – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Principle 4 (balance) – presenter adopted aggressive manner with two interviewees – prevented interviewees from presenting significant viewpoints to listeners – listeners deprived of important information on controversial issue under discussion – unbalanced – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – one aspect of fairness complaint subsumed into consideration of Principle 4 – programme not unfair to Minister for Disability Issues – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – media commentator referred to article in Investigate magazine which raised questions about the sexuality of a public figure – commentator said the named public figure was not a “poof” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and denigrated homosexuals FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principle 7 – denigration of homosexuals was essence of the complaint – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – high threshold for denigration not met – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Media commentator Phil Wallington reviewed the media on National Radio’s Nine to Noon each week during 2006. On 19 September 2006, he was highly critical of the manner in which the magazine Investigate had raised the issue of the sexuality of a public figure....

ComplaintNine to Noon – host read out email critical of Whanau series – host highlighted grammatical and typographical errors in email – breach of right of individuals to express own opinions – breach of requirement to deal justly and fairly with person referred to in programme – failure to show impartiality on question of a controversial nature FindingsPrinciple 4 – host presented email correspondent's point of view – no uphold Guideline 4a to Principle 4 – host presented correspondent's opinion – no uphold Principle 5 – correspondent not treated unjustly or unfairly – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Nine to Noon programme broadcast on National Radio on 14 August 2001, the host read out a number of responses received from listeners via phone, fax or email....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – host spoke to a number of women about their experiences with dowry abuse in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – highlighted problem of dowry abuse and presented experiences of a few women – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccurate statements – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not identify any group or section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a Nine to Noon interview discussing the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill breached the balance and fairness standards. The item included interviews with current and former Children’s Commissioners, who were both generally opposed to the proposed legislation. As the item was clearly signalled as coming from a particular perspective, and the existence of other perspectives was indicated within the broadcast, the Authority found there was no need to include other perspectives within the item itself. In the circumstances it was unlikely listeners would have been left uninformed or unaware there were other perspectives on the issue. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint the use of the term ‘iTaukei’ to refer to indigenous Fijians breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In light of the Authority’s previous finding that a similarly innocuous use of the term did not breach broadcasting standards, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance standard about an interview on Nine to Noon. The complaint was that the interview about the subject of the truancy service system in schools only canvassed a single perspective. Considering the interview was signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, the perspectives presented were criticism of the status quo, and the period of current interest is still ongoing, it is unlikely listeners would be left misinformed by the broadcast or unaware there were other perspectives on the issues discussed. Not Upheld: Balance...

ComplaintNational Radio – Nine to Noon – commentary about dispute among board members of NZ Post – accountability of SOEs – lack of balance FindingsPrinciple 4 – accountability of SOE boards a controversial issue – authoritative and expert opinion – no uphold CommentOpportunity to rebut and question news and current affairs to ensure balance outlined in Guideline 4b applies to talkback – it does not apply to items balanced in themselves or balanced within the current period of interest This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The accountability of board members of a State Owned Enterprise was the topic addressed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer in his weekly segment on Nine to Noon. The broadcast complained about was on National Radio on 10 July 2001 at 11. 45am....

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint a discussion on an inquiry and proposed reforms to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 breached the accuracy, balance and fairness standards, due to the broadcaster failing to provide prior warning to the complainant of the inclusion of a further participant to the discussion, and for not providing sufficient time for the complainant to respond to the new participant’s analysis. The Authority found the complainant was provided with a fair opportunity to articulate his position and to respond to concerns raised by other participants; the alleged inaccuracies amounted to analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply, and the analysis was not materially misleading with respect to any facts referred to. Noting the perspectives included in the broadcast, the Authority found the complainant’s concerns about balance were better addressed under accuracy and fairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – broadcast of anonymous interviewee’s allegations that the Hon David Benson-Pope was guilty of bullying students at Bayfield High School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – broadcasting allegations by anonymous interviewee unfair – RNZ did not verify interviewee’s credibility to a high standard before granting anonymity – did not undertake sufficient independent investigations into interviewee’s story – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue whether Mr Benson-Pope bullied students during his time as a teacher – RNZ made reasonable efforts to present significant perspectives within period of current interest – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one aspect subsumed under Principle 5 – decline to determine whether allegations were accurate – describing a caning as a “beating” not inaccurate – not upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $5,000…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a comment made by business commentator, Rod Oram, during a segment on Nine to Noon. The Authority found that Mr Oram’s view as to the effectiveness of a former Chair of a seed business was an opinion that is not subject to the accuracy standard. Not Upheld: Accuracy The item[1] A segment on Nine to Noon featured business commentator Rod Oram discussing the sale of a seed business. During the discussion Mr Oram said one of the former Chairs had been ‘highly effective’ in their previous roles. [2] The item was broadcast on 7 August 2018 on RNZ National. The complaint[3] Allan Golden complained that Mr Oram’s statement about the effectiveness of the former Chair was ‘not true’ as Mr Golden believed they had not been ‘highly effective’....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging an item on Nine to Noon breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, due to a presenter using the expression ‘effing annoying’ when describing a character in a book review. In light of the Authority’s guidance on complaints that are unlikely to succeed and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine this complaint.   Declined to Determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content...