Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Truth Radio – host made statements about ChildFund and other child sponsorship organisations – allegedly inaccurateFindings Principle 6 (accuracy) – comments made by host were clearly distinguishable as opinion – accuracy standard did not apply – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] During an item broadcast on Radio Pacific’s Truth Radio programme on 28 March 2007, the host John Banks made some comments regarding child sponsorship organisations. The host had taken a call from a listener who wanted to discuss how the organisation Child Fund New Zealand operated. [2] In relation to ChildFund’s operations the host said that it was a: . . ....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about improving the safety of the site of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster – reported thousands had died during and after the event – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – although a human and environmental catastrophe, UN and WHO sources suggest deaths of less than 100 – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Fresh concerns about improving the safety of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster site in the Ukraine were covered in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 13 May 2005. It was reported that “thousands of people died during and after the disaster”. Complaint [2] Allan Dewar complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate....

ComplaintNine to Noon – Ministry of Health official described as Deputy-Director of Clinical Services and “Disinformation” – unfair – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4 and Principle 5 – subsumed under Principle 6 Principle 6 – use of word “disinformation” unfair to Ministry and Deputy Director-General – upheld OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Dr Colin Feek, the Ministry of Health’s Deputy Director-General of Clinical Services, was interviewed on Nine to Noon, on National Radio on 10 June 2003 about an audit on the way hospitals treated patients with heart problems. At the conclusion of the interview, he was described as the Deputy Director-General of Clinical Services “and Disinformation”. [2] The Ministry of Health complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was inaccurate, unbalanced, and unfair to both the Ministry and Dr Feek....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on Christchurch homeowners living in the government’s red zone with regard to their replacement insurance policies – interviewed Tower Insurance customer who had been advised that his replacement insurance would cover the cost of repairing his damaged house but not its full replacement value – visited Tower’s head office – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Campbell Live exhausted all legitimate methods to obtain comment from Tower – Mr Campbell’s approach polite and non-confrontational – door-stepping used as a means of obtaining information and constructive comment – not unfair to Tower or the receptionist – reference to email a fair summary of its contents – overall Tower treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on bullying incident at Ruawai College, told from the perspective of the victim’s mother – victim’s mother expressed frustration at the school because she was not informed of the incident until a couple of days after it occurred – contained repeated footage of the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not create an unfairly negative impression of the school and staff members – school was provided with fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and the Principal adequately presented the school’s position – item did not create an unfair impression about the timing or duration of the incident – reference to letter was not unfair – footage of police was due to an oversight – school and staff members treated fairly and overall…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-065:The Warehouse Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-065 PDF467. 48 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-072:Minister of Health (Hon Simon Upton) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-072 PDF489. 34 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-042:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-042 PDF365. 34 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3rd Degree considered a controversial and increasingly popular high fat and low carbohydrate diet. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the item was unbalanced and inaccurate because it was more favourable to the ‘pro-fat’ side of the debate. The broadcaster clearly made efforts to interview experts on both sides of the debate, and viewers were left to make up their own minds or seek further information about the merits of the diet. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness Introduction [1] An item on 3rd Degree considered a controversial and increasingly popular high fat and low carbohydrate diet. A reporter interviewed a number of experts, and also talked to several people who had experienced weight loss and health benefits from the diet. The item aired on TV3 on 23 April 2014....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Sunday, which investigated gay conversion therapy in New Zealand, was unbalanced and inaccurate. The Authority found the existence of differing viewpoints was pointed to throughout the programme, with balancing comments provided by those featured and in final comments from the presenter. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme, relying on authoritative medical opinion from health experts regarding current views on gay conversion therapy and the potential harm that could be caused by the practice. In making these findings, the Authority recognised the high public interest in this story and found that upholding the complaint would represent an unjustified and unreasonable limit on the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has not upheld complaints under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards regarding an item on 1 News reporting on the global economy. The item referred to the National Party’s tax policy and included comments from both the Leader of the Opposition Christopher Luxon MP and Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. The complainants considered the report’s editing of comments misled the audience to ‘think that PM Jacinda Ardern thinks financial discipline is not right nor good for New Zealand’. The Authority did not consider a reasonable viewer would be left with this impression. The balance and fairness standards were not breached. Not upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a segment of Overnight Talk breached several standards. In the programme, a caller to the show queried the validity of the host’s statement that 1400 Israelis had died in the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas, and asked what evidence the host had of the attack. The host’s response included suggesting the caller should not be ‘an idiot’, saying he was not going to waste his time, terminating the call and advising the caller that they could see ‘uncensored footage’ of the attack on the ‘deepest, darkest parts of the internet’ if they needed evidence....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 13/95 Dated the 9th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRIAN KIRBY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 42/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CASINO CONTROL AUTHORITY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Following an interview with a COVID-19 vaccine advocate on the AM Show, the host noted Medsafe gave the vaccine the ‘same approval as everyday medicines like Panadol and Nurofen’. The complaint stated this was misleading and in breach of five standards, including the accuracy standard. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as the accuracy standard is concerned with material inaccuracy. To the extent there was any inaccuracy, it was unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme. The Authority considered the other standards raised either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Balance, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the reasons that outgoing New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd was not seeking re-election. These included that Mr Judd had suffered abuse and become ‘deeply unpopular’ because of his campaign to increase Māori representation on the New Plymouth District Council, in particular by proposing that a Māori ward be established on the Council. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance and was misleading by failing to accurately present the perspective of the New Plymouth public who were opposed to Mr Judd’s proposed reforms. While it was framed primarily as a profile piece on Mr Judd, the item’s discussion of the proposed Māori ward triggered the requirement for balance....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub explored concerns of members of the public and the Christchurch City Council regarding potential water contamination from a bore drilled by Cloud Ocean Water and pending judicial review action taken against Environment Canterbury (ECan) over their resource consent processes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair to Cloud Ocean Water. The Authority found that Cloud Ocean Water’s responses to questions from Newshub prior to the broadcast were fairly reflected in the item, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled regarding the nature of Cloud Ocean Water’s involvement in the resource consent process or the judicial review....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic – included disputed claims about couple's dealings with mechanic – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item created negative impression of the complainant but he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item – complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – claims presented as couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not points of fact (guideline 5a) – viewers would have understood that claims were one side of the story and were disputed by the complainant so they would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....