Search Rapua

The Authority has upheld a complaint from Kathryn Bayliss about an item on Cockies Hour concerning a discussion between Steve Wyn-Harris and the Chair of the Tukituki Water Security Project after the project was included on the Fast-track Approvals Bill's list of projects released on 6 October 2024. The Authority agreed the description of the 22 hectares of Department of Conservation land needed for the dam project as ‘only stewardship land’, when approximately 93% of it has ‘conservation park status’, was a material inaccuracy which the broadcaster had not made reasonable efforts to avoid. The Authority also found the broadcaster failed to correct the error within a reasonable period after being put on notice. Upheld: Accuracy Orders: Section 13(1)(a) Broadcasting Act 1989 - statement published on air and online...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two RNZ broadcasts, a week apart — Morning Report and The Detail — about New Zealand’s low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines were unbalanced and inaccurate. The Authority found that any inaccuracies regarding Canada’s alcohol guidelines were not material in the context of the overall broadcasts. With respect to balance, the Authority found the Morning Report broadcast was clearly signalled as focussing on one aspect of the much larger, complex debate on alcohol policy. Although the complainant was mentioned once during Morning Report, in the context the audience would not have expected a countering viewpoint to be presented from the complainant or the industry. The Detail carried significant public interest and sufficiently alerted listeners to alternative perspectives through a comment from the Executive Director of the New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council and the host’s use of ‘devil’s advocate’ questioning. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 43/94 Decision No: 44/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SHIRLEY EARLLY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996 - 030 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CENTRE FOR PSYCHO- SOCIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-007 Decision No: 1998-008 Decision No: 1998-009 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLAN HILL of Wellington and GLADYS GARDNER of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-067 Dated the 25th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK DONNELLY, on behalf of EDEN PARK NEIGHBOURS' ASSOCIATION of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintDateline – inaccurate – lacked balance – inadequately researchedFindingsStandard G1 – legitimate to report on research in progress – no uphold Standard G6 – balance achieved in period of current interest – no uphold Standard G15 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary "Safe and natural" plant estrogens were said to offer relief for symptoms of menopause according to an item on Dateline broadcast on TV3 on 26 April 2000 between 9. 30–10. 30pm. Richard James complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained inaccuracies and was unbalanced. He argued that taking plant estrogens was likely to expose women to unacceptable health risks. TV3’s initial response was an informal one. Addressing the points raised by Mr James, it maintained that the programme was not irresponsible, unbalanced or untrue....

Complaint Radio Pacific – talkback host Mark Bennett – critical of appointment of gay or lesbian police liaison officer – comments said to encourage denigration – inaccurate – unfairFindings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – odious comment – obsolete stereotypes – comparators used displayed illegal behaviour – high threshold for breach not attainedPrinciple 5 and Guideline 5c – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 6 and Guideline 6c – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary[1] The appointment of a gay and lesbian police liaison officer in Hamilton was the subject of critical comment by the host (Mark Bennett) in a broadcast on Radio Pacific talkback. The comments were broadcast at about 3. 15pm on Wednesday 15 October 2003....

Complaint 20/20 – "The Goons" – item about Christchurch Prison Emergency Response Unit – inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandards 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracies (i) did not "order" penis incident; (ii) not found guilty of 21 breaches of code of conduct – uphold on these 2 points – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – complainant no opportunity to present views – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "The Goons", an item on 20/20, was broadcast by TV3 at 7. 30pm on 9 June 2002. The item investigated the activities of the Christchurch Prison Emergency Response Unit (ERU), referred to by some as the "Goon Squad". [2] Doug Smith complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item contained a number of inaccurate statements, and was unbalanced....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Green Party was calling for an urgent safety review of non-stick cookware – claimed the US Environmental Protection Agency had found possible links between non-stick cookware, cancer and birth defects – veterinarian stated that non-stick pans could be deadly to household birds – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item contained misleading and inaccurate statements – would have unnecessarily alarmed viewers – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any person or organisation taking part in the programme – not upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $927. 50 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – item about security camera outside apartment in Auckland – owners concerned that camera would capture images inside their home – item said the Police had assured them that camera was broken, and once fixed any images would be pixellated – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss issue of controversial public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – one statement misleading – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item dealt justly and fairly with the Police – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On TV3 at 6pm on 30 November 2005, an item was broadcast on 3 News about a security camera positioned outside the apartment of an Auckland couple....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about fathers frustrated with the Family Court system – included interview with father who had been involved in custody dispute – identified his eight-year-old daughter – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, in breach of daughter’s privacy and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts about child – not in child’s best interests – no public interest in disclosing facts – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster presented significant viewpoints on controversial issue under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and guideline 9i – child unnecessarily identified and exploited – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 13(1)(d) – payment to JB for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $3,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500 This headnote…...

An appeal against this decision was allowed in the High Court and the complaint was referred back to the Authority for reconsideration: CIV 2010-485-225 PDF136. 55 KB 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 inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a factual programme – interviewee made statements of fact that were material to topic under discussion – accusations extremely serious – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to assess the veracity of the accusations – upheld by majorityNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryA Frontline programme broadcast on 12 September 1993 focused on the electricity pricingarrangements between Comalco (NZ) Ltd and ECNZ and raised questions about the ratescharged to domestic and large commercial consumers. Comalco (NZ) Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd thatthe item lacked objectivity and left misleading and damaging impressions. In particular itobjected to the implication that Comalco's electricity was subsidised by domestic consumers,and to the suggestion that its recent pricing agreement with ECNZ was to be kept secret soas to avoid embarrassing the government in the pre-election period. Maintaining that an investigation of the pricing arrangements was in the public interest,TVNZ rejected all aspects of the complaint. It argued that the question about whether thearrangement was a subsidy or a discount was balanced by comment from Comalcoofficials and from energy analysts....

ComplaintChannel Z – News item – arrest of man for the kidnapping of Kahurautete Durie – reported that the accused expected to have a hard time in jail – announcer expressed pleasure at that prospect – offensive, unfair and unbalanced – broadcaster upheld aspect that item failed to distinguish between fact and opinionFindingsPrinciple 1 – not offensive – no upholdPrinciple 2 – did not encourage breach of law – no upholdPrinciple 3 – accused not named – no breach of privacy – no upholdPrinciple 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdPrinciple 6 – facts sourced and distinguished from opinion – no upholdPrinciple 7 – gang spokesmen cited – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The arrest of a 54 year-old man accused of kidnapping Kahurautete Durie was reported in a news item on Channel Z broadcast at 8. 00am on 22 April 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six taxi companies in Auckland – noted that driver of Green Cab had looked down at something six times during the journey – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster was entitled to edit footage – unclear what the driver was looking at – Target legitimately commented that he demonstrated lapses in concentration and took his eyes off the road – programme broadcast fair reflection of Green Cabs’ response – not unfair – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – concerns better dealt with under fairness – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...