Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an MP who reactivated Dutch citizenship – possible breach of law – MP’s lawyer presented as constitutional specialist and not as legal representative Standard 5 – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster – role as lawyer since reported in other programme – action considered insufficient Standard 4 – balance – not considered by broadcaster – referred to AuthorityProcess Application by complainant for Discovery – declined Application by complainant for Interlocutory Decision – declinedFindings Standard 4 – item’s focus on possibility of by-election – balanced – not upheld Action Taken – a correction broadcast at the time of error should have occurred – now a year later, no order appropriate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – item on Israeli attacks in Gaza – unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – balance achieved both in coverage on day and following days’ news coverage – no uphold Standard 5 – item not inaccurate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Two Israeli attacks in Gaza were the focus of an item about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict broadcast on One News on TV One at 6. 00pm on 11 June 2003. It reported that both attacks missed their targets, but had killed five and injured a number of Palestinians. The deaths, it was said, could set off another round of "tit for tat" killings. [2] Deborah Hart complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and inaccurate as it gave only the Palestinian perspective and suggested that the attacks had happened without provocation....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Dragon’s Den – contestant said that ACC paid $68 million per year for people to hang out washing for people who were unable to do it themselves – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – not a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Dragon’s Den was a series in which would-be entrepreneurs pitched their business ideas to five successful business people in the hopes that they might invest. In the episode broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 19 October 2006, one of the contestants said: The ACC spends $68 million a year on helping people hang out their washing alone – I know, it’s a staggering amount. . ....

...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item reported ongoing dissension at the Berakah Retreat among some members as to action which had been taken about a former member who had abused children – former member had been dismissed from Retreat and parents did not press charges – complainant responsible for oversight of Retreat – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – suggestion that Trust acted largely to protect its own reputation – use of Ku Klux Klan imagery – use of secret recording of meeting and imagery used – accumulation of matters – majority decision that it was unfair – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – omission of full reasons for dismissal of dissident members not misleading given item’s focus – other omissions dealt with as fairness issues – not upheldNo…...

ComplaintOne News – interview with Chief Ombudsman about tax-payer funded sex-change operation where health bureaucracy acted unfairly – incorrect impression portrayed of ombudsman’s decision contrary to agreement before interview – unfair – distortion Interlocutory Decision 2001-ID001 – order to TVNZ to supply field tape to the Authority Interlocutory Decision 2001-ID002 – order to supply field tape to the complainant FindingsStandards G4 and G19 – item explained issue dealt with in Chief Ombudsman’s ruling – extract did not distort Chief Ombudsman’s comments – Chief Ombudsman not dealt with unfairly – no uphold Standard G1 – item’s introduction inaccurate – upholdNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ruling by the Ombudsman that a person seeking a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation had been treated unfairly by the health bureaucracy was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast on TV One between 6. 00–7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that a homicide investigation was underway after the death of Rotorua high school principal Hawea Vercoe – presenter stated that Mr Vercoe had died after being punched to the ground during a fight – included details of a recent conviction – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reporters entitled to rely on information provided by police – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the report was accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – family did not take part and were not referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Sunday 22 November 2009, reported on the death of high school principal Hawea Vercoe....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – use of archive footage of haka during item about foreshore and seabed dispute – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – use of footage not misleading or inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – use not unfair to any person or group – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Archive footage of a haka performed at Waitangi beach was used in a Holmes item about the dispute over ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The programme was broadcast on 19 August 2003 at 7. 00pm on TV One. [2] Wiremu Te Rauna Williams complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the archive footage was inaccurate and amounted to “fraud and betrayal”, as it had no connection to the seabed and foreshore debate....

ComplaintOne News – Australian Governor-General – alleged cover-up of sexual abuse – Merepeka Raukawa-Tait interviewed – suggested Australians were hypocritical as their silence may have contributed to abuse – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 and Guideline 4a – item balanced about matter of Governor-General’s tenure – no uphold Standard 5 – item accurate – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no evidence of denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Controversy over the allegations that the Australian Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, had covered up sex abuse cases when Archbishop of Brisbane was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 22 February 2002. The Chief Executive of Women’s Refuge in New Zealand, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, when interviewed, suggested that the criticism directed at Dr Hollingworth was hypocritical....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item examined attitudes of “boy racers” in Christchurch and the efforts by police to curb their activities – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item focused on the “boy racers” and their attitudes – did not purport to examine the issue from residents’ perspective – clear from the item that “boy racer” activities were noisy and disruptive – also stated that police were outnumbered and struggling to contain the problem – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 31 May 2009 reported on the ongoing problem of “boy racers” in Christchurch and efforts by police to curb their activities....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – comment that an earthquake had occurred “just after sunrise” – complaint that earthquake was at least one hour and 45 minutes after sunrise – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – figure of speech – introductory comment only – not presented as a statement of fact – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up on TV One at 7pm on 21 January 2005 described an earthquake which had been felt in the Wellington district that morning. The presenter said “the big ‘quake struck just after sunrise”. Complaint [2] Donald McDonald complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate and in breach of Standard 5....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item about two young New Zealanders who won prizes in an essay competition on issues of public concern – one essay about the impact of mussel farming on the marine environment – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – essay competition was the item’s focus, not mussel industry – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – opinions not facts about mussel industry advanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Two young New Zealand conservationists who had won prices in an essay competition were interviewed in One News broadcast on TV One beginning at 6. 00pm on 18 July 2004. One had written an essay on the impact of mussel farming on the marine environment, focusing on the Marlborough Sounds....

Complaint under section 8(1C)(C)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reference to China as “the godless state” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “godless” used in this context to mean “without a god”, not “wicked” – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not constitute a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “godless” to mean “without a god” did not jeopardise editorial independence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, made by the BBC, was broadcast at 6pm on 25 December 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on landslip affecting several homes in Bucklands Beach – stated that one house had been bought just five weeks prior to landslip through Trinity Real Estate, which was in liquidation, and that a LIM report was not obtained – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Trinity Real Estate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and TV One promos – use of the word “next” – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled by the use of the word “next” to indicate upcoming programmes – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Prior to a commercial break during One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6. 15pm on 9 March 2007, a banner at the bottom of the screen said “Next: Alzheimer’s Awareness” as the presenter briefly described an upcoming news item. [2] On the same evening at 6. 55pm, a TV One promo carried the words “Next: Antiques Roadshow”, and on 11 March 2007 at 6. 55pm a similar promo read “Next: Close Up”....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the trial of Colin Mitchell, who was found guilty of the kidnapping and sexually motivated attack of a young woman. During the item, the reporter stated: ‘DNA evidence from [Mr Mitchell’s] toothbrush matched that found on and inside the pair of gloves left at the quarry; 800,000 million times more likely to have come from Mitchell than anyone else’ [our emphasis]. The Authority declined to determine a complaint that the reporter’s statement was inaccurate because it did not take into account the possibility that Mr Mitchell had an identical twin, or that DNA evidence could have been falsified or planted. The Authority found the complaint was frivolous and trivial....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Q + A with Jack Tame that discussed a recent climate change report and recent high temperatures in the Antarctic region. The item included interviews with experts, one of whom described the high temperatures in Antarctica as an ‘extreme event that we've seen in the background of climate change’ and that we should expect more such events ‘as the world is warming’. The complainant alleged the broadcast misled viewers as extreme weather events are not becoming more frequent, the higher temperatures in Antarctica were inaccurate, humans do not cause climate change and no detrimental changes have been observed. The Authority found the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, including relying on authoritative experts, and the broadcast was unlikely to mislead viewers....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the question ‘How can anyone trust anything that you say? ’ put to Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health, following the positive tests of two women who were released from managed isolation on compassionate grounds. Dr Bloomfield’s answers to the question (which was posed twice) were shown on-air. Viewers would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him. As a public health official he is reasonably subject to robust scrutiny, especially during a pandemic. The fairness standard was accordingly not breached and the remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...