Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday with Chris Laidlaw – host interviewed sociologist about anti-Semitic fringe groups in New Zealand that were seeking to deny or downplay the extent of the Holocaust – interviewee made statements about an individual who he said was a Holocaust denier – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a factual programme - interviewee's statements distinguishable as analysis – exempt from accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a segment called "Ideas" on Sunday with Chris Laidlaw, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on the morning of 31 May 2009, the host interviewed a sociologist, Dr Scott Hamilton, about anti-Semitic fringe groups in New Zealand that were seeking to deny or downplay the gravity of the Holocaust....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the then President-Elect Donald Trump’s meeting with rapper Kanye West, and President-Elect Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. At the end of the item, the newsreader stated, ‘And Trump has also chosen a climate change denier, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, to become his Secretary of Energy’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the term ‘climate change denier’ was deeply offensive to all climate change sceptics, particularly because it linked them to ‘Holocaust deniers’, and was inaccurate and unbalanced. ‘Climate change sceptics’ are not a recognised section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies. In any event, the term was used in this item merely to describe a particular perspective on the issue of climate change....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-010–024: Sharp and 6 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-010–024 PDF3. 96 MB...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Party Education Advertisement – National Party leader and Prime Minister John Key stated, “National is building a better education system, with school reports in plain English. . . ” – statement allegedly inaccurate and misleading FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) of Free-to-Air Television Code – advertisement did not state as fact that all school reports would be written in the English language – “plain English” was colloquial way of stating “easy to understand” – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An advertisement for the New Zealand National Party was broadcast on TV One on 2 November 2011 at approximately 9. 30pm....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News Covid Update broadcast breached the balance and accuracy standards by featuring modelling of the current COVID-19 outbreak provided by Professor Shaun Hendy. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached. While the item discussed the topic of COVID-19 modelling, which is a controversial issue of public importance, it was clearly signalled as approaching the topic from a particular perspective. Viewers could also reasonably be expected to be aware of alternative views from other coverage.  The accuracy standard was not breached as the modelling was analysis, comment or opinion and so was not subject to the standard. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – interview with one of the "medal thieves" – viewers were told a false name was used – caption said it was an actor's voice – figure shown in interview was in fact an actor – allegedly misleading and in breach of programme information standard Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – viewers were misled into thinking they were seeing the actual interview – broadcaster did not take sufficient steps to correct the mistake for its viewers in the same medium – upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 5 Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Downsize Me! – recommendations on weight loss and nutrition – allegedly inaccurate and misleading Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – "factual programme" in the sense that it reported actual events and offered general information – advice and "scare tactics" presented in personable way – general messages were to eat better, exercise regularly and improve health – viewers would have understood that most of the advice was tailored to the particular participants – no misleading statements – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Downsize Me! was a health, diet and exercise programme where overweight people worked for eight weeks to lose weight and reduce health risks. The Tuesday 16 September 2008 episode, broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV3, featured a couple named James and Jo. The team consisted of "Downsize Me!...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold three complaints about an episode of Sunday that discussed freedom of expression and hate speech and which featured edited excerpts of an interview with Canadian commentators, Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern. The Authority found the broadcast was balanced, containing a wide range of perspectives on a controversial issue of public importance, being the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in New Zealand. The Authority also found that the interview with Mr Molyneux and Ms Southern was used to illustrate points relevant to the wider topic but was not in itself the central focus of the item. The pending visit of Mr Molyneux and Ms Southern was therefore used to frame the issues in the item....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 3 News item reported on allegations of widespread doping amongst Russian athletes and included a reference to the disqualification of a Belarussian shot-putter at the London Olympics. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the item was misleading, unbalanced and denigrated Russians by failing to differentiate between Belarus and Russia. The reporter accurately described the Belarussian athlete and the Russian Olympic team, and in the context of the item viewers would not have been misled into thinking Belarus and Russia were the same country. The item portrayed a range of significant viewpoints on the allegations of doping amongst Russian Olympic athletes and did not contain any material which discriminated against, or denigrated, Russians. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A 3 News item reported on allegations of widespread doping amongst Russian athletes....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Newshub Nation, featuring electrical engineer and Pike River Mine researcher, Richard Healey. Mr Healey commented on his claims of ‘new crucial evidence’ the miners could have survived the explosions and of the existence of a pipeline which could be used to recover more evidence. The complaint alleged Mr Healey’s claims were speculative and unsupported by evidence, were not challenged by the host and caused emotional harm to the victims’ families. The Authority acknowledged the sensitivity of the matters discussed, which also carried a high degree of public interest. It found the broadcast clearly presented Mr Healey’s claims as one theory and from a particular perspective. The wide range of information and coverage available over a long period of time since the original events reduced any risk of viewers being misled or significantly misinformed....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a question during a social welfare debate on Morning Report suggesting an ACT Party policy ‘smacks of eugenics’. In the context it was not outside audience expectations for Morning Report and political debate. It would not have caused widespread offence. The complaint did not raise any issues under the balance standard. The question was comment and analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Ms McKee and the ACT Party were treated fairly in the context of the debate. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under the accuracy standard, about an episode of Our Changing World. The Authority considered the complaint, about the use of the word ‘English’ instead of ‘British’ trivial. Declined to Determine: Accuracy (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial)...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding a 1 News item. The item opened by referring to ‘weeks of tension between Jews and Christians in Israel’. This was inaccurate as the item reported on tensions between Israelis and Palestinians during a period of overlapping religious holidays. The broadcaster acknowledged the reference to Christians was an error, but did not uphold the original complaint as the error was ‘implicitly corrected by the full context of the story’. The Authority found, given the item immediately following reported on violence between Muslim and Jewish people, the inaccuracy in the introduction was unlikely to mislead the audience overall. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

ComplaintsHolmes – two items – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – inaccuracies – unfair to ACC and to women – unbalanced – unnecessary intrusion into grief and distress of victims – significant errors of fact not corrected at earliest opportunity Findings (ACC complaint)(1) Standard G1 – inaccurate to refer to counsellor as part of ACC’s organisation – inaccurate to say women were referred to counsellor by ACC – uphold (2) Standard G4 – broadcasts unfairly framed ACC – uphold; breach in relation to the interviews with the women – uphold (3) Standard G6 and Standard G14 – selective editing of press release – items unbalanced – uphold Findings (MacDonald complaint)(1) Standard G4 – aspect upheld by broadcaster; breach in relation to the interviews with the women – uphold; broadcasts unfairly framed ACC – uphold (2) Standard G6 – item unbalanced – uphold Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $12,500 reimbursement of reasonable…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about ongoing Family Court proceedings concerning custody of a child – father interviewed anonymously and gave details of evidence and proceedings – brief visuals of baby – mother believed that as baby was identifiable, she was also identifiable – personal details broadcast about her – some allegedly inaccurate – child shown without mother’s permission – alleged breach of privacy of mother and baby – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – referral outside statutory time limit – s....

The chair, Joanne Morris, declared a conflict of interest and declined to participate in the determination of this complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....