Search Rapua

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – commentator (Hana O’Regan) compared the impact of views of the leader of the National Party (Dr Brash) to those of Hitler – allegedly offensive, irresponsible, unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings: Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – another perspective on extensively debated controversial issue – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – focus of comparison on process, not policy – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – limited factual comparison accurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Commentator Hana O’Regan was interviewed by the presenter (Linda Clark) on National Radio’s Nine to Noon between 9. 54 and 10. 00am on 11 February 2004....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-081 Decision No: 1998-082 Dated the 30th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by A R MORETON of Auckland and ROBERT MENZIES of Picton RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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....

The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about a segment on Nine to Noon because the complaint did not explicitly or implicitly identify any broadcasting standards breached by the broadcast. Declined Jurisdiction...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-1465 PDF165. 64 KBComplaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with legal commentator about the Ministry of Justice’s review of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 – referred to women when talking about the victims and men when discussing the abusers – allegedly unbalancedFindings Principle 4 (balance) – not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item broadcast during Nine to Noon on Radio New Zealand National on 27 February 2008 featured an interview with a legal commentator, Catriona McLennan. Ms McLennan discussed a review, published by the Ministry of Justice, of implementation aspects of New Zealand’s Domestic Violence Act 1995....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that quotes from the book ‘Everything is F*cked’ by Mark Manson, broadcast as part of a review of that book, breached the good taste and decency, programme information and violence standards. The Authority noted that the right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in their own words, provided this does not cause undue harm. In this case, the nature of the item was clearly signalled by the introduction, and the quotes were contextualised by the reviewer who was using them as examples to emphasise and support his criticism of the book. This enabled listeners to make an informed decision about their listening and that of children in their care....

SummaryA segment on National Radio’s Nine to Noon which featured a review of a book entitled "Four to Score" was broadcast on 1 October 1998. The broadcast had included the host of the programme referring to a character in the book whose surname was "Kuntz". Mr Lord complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character’s surname was pronounced by the host in a manner which was deliberately offensive and demonstrated a reckless disregard for the sensibilities of her audience. In his view, the host should have used the softer Germanic pronunciation instead of what he described as the most distasteful pronunciation possible. RNZ advised that as the word was used once only in the context of a literary review, it had not been used gratuitously....

Complaint Nine to Noon – interview with Dr Brian Edwards – broadcast did not distinguish between fact and opinion – RNZ’s editorial integrity and independence challenged FindingsPrinciple 6 – no standards issues raised – vexatious – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview by presenter Kim Hill of Dr Brian Edwards was broadcast on Nine to Noon on National Radio on 18 February 2000. Simon Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast did not distinguish clearly between fact and opinion and that RNZ had not ensured that editorial independence and integrity had been maintained. He contended that the interviewer had been involved in the negotiations about Dr Edwards’ programme, and had commented on whether Dr Edwards’ political role was compatible with his job as radio presenter....

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Interlocutory application for disclosure of additional material – broadcast of allegations by an anonymous interviewee on Nine to NoonDecision on interlocutory applicationRequest for production of field tape – already offered by broadcaster – decline to determineRequest for disclosure of interviewee’s name – not required in order for Authority to determine complaints – declinedRequest for production of all relevant pre-broadcast records and documents, and emails received after the broadcast – not required in order for Authority to determine complaints – declinedThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Factual Background[1] On 12 May 2005, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, National and Act Members of Parliament accused then Associate Minister of Education, the Hon David Benson-Pope, of bullying students while he was teaching at Dunedin’s Bayfield High School in the 1980s. [2] Mr Benson-Pope categorically denied the allegations....

Summary A psychiatrist and the mother of a young person suffering from a mental illness were interviewed by Kim Hill on Nine to Noon broadcast on National Radio on 4 August 1999 beginning at 9. 40am. Mr Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the interview lacked balance because it did not include the point of view of anyone who had been diagnosed as suffering a mental illness. He also complained that, because the mother was identified, her son would also have been identifiable, and it was a breach of the Privacy Act to release his medical details. Mr Boyce argued that the interviewer perpetuated myths and stereotypes about those with mental illness. In its response, RNZ emphasised that the focus of the interview was the availability of treatment for young people suffering mental illness....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion about taxi safety – referred to taxi drivers as “cabbies” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “cabbies” not pejorative – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster not required to present views of non-Taxi Federation companies – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – did not imply that non-Taxi Federation members were at the “bottom end” of the industry – not unfair – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – programme was ambiguous as to whether Taxi Federation represented all companies – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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’....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on Nine to Noon, titled ‘Science with Simon Pollard’, science commentator Simon Pollard spoke about ‘the science of conspiracy theories’. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the host allowed Mr Pollard to make one-sided, inaccurate comments that were highly critical of conspiracy theorists. This was clearly an opinion piece, on a topic of human interest, so Mr Pollard’s comments were not subject to standards of accuracy, and the broadcaster was not required to present other significant viewpoints. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During a segment on Nine to Noon, titled ‘Science with Simon Pollard’, science commentator Simon Pollard spoke about ‘the science of conspiracy theories’....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the 'three strikes' legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaintFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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...

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 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...