Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – statement that the average household spends 20 percent more on electricity than it did 20 years ago – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the statement referred to 20 percent of household budget, not 20 percent more money – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 31 May 2007, discussed the recent death of a woman whose power had been switched off by an electricity company. The reporter said the woman’s death had: …thrown the spotlight on the huge increases in power prices in the past 20 years. The average household now spends 20 percent more on electricity....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, characters Lincoln and Jack took Nicole out for drinks to take her mind off her attacker. Lincoln, who was previously in a relationship with a man, was shown taking an illegal drug which he gave to Nicole. Later in the episode, Lincoln and Nicole were shown in bed together. In the episode broadcast the following evening, Jack asked Lincoln about being gay and sleeping with Nicole. Lincoln replied that he did not have to ‘put a label on it’, saying, ‘I’m just me’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme’s portrayal of Lincoln’s sexuality, by a straight actor, could have damaging effects on young viewers or those struggling with their sexuality....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On an episode of Seven Sharp, the hosts discussed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and interviewed a law professor. The professor explained the contrast between the dispute resolution mechanisms of the TPP and those of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). After the interview, one host asked the other, ‘So these foreign countries could potentially hold the government for ransom down the track? Surely it goes both ways; surely we’ll have some control’. The other host replied, ‘Of course it does. Who did we take to the WTO? We’ve taken a number of countries to the WTO. . . ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this was misleading in that it suggested that TPP disputes would go through a similar process as the WTO, when in fact this was not the case for investor-state disputes....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2017-485-71. 12 MBSummary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Paul Henry about Independence Day celebrations in the USA featured an interview with the USA’s Ambassador to New Zealand. Prior to the interview, Paul Henry referred to the USA claiming ‘its independence from England’. He later quoted Margaret Thatcher, referring to her as the ‘Prime Minister of England’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Henry’s statements were inaccurate and discriminatory in that he should have referred to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, rather than England. The item was focused primarily on Independence Day celebrations and the statements would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The AM Show contained a number of items about Labour Party candidate Willie Jackson’s position on the recently released Labour Party candidate List (the List), and featured interviews with Labour Party leader Andrew Little and Willie Jackson. It was reported several times that Mr Jackson was disappointed with his position of 21 on the List, as Mr Little had ‘promised’ Mr Jackson a top-10 position. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this was inaccurate and unfair. The segments amounted to robust political expression, which is of particular importance in the lead-up to a general election, and carried high value in terms of the right to freedom of expression. Viewers were likely to have understood the comments as political speculation, rather than definitive statements of fact, which is common in the context of political reporting....

The majority of the Authority upheld (in part) a complaint about a segment on Marae discussing the bounds of the right to freedom of expression, in the wake of Posie Parker’s ‘Let Women Speak’ events. The complaint argued the segment was unbalanced, disproportionately favouring views of participants against the events, and inaccurate in multiple respects. The Authority found the segment adequately presented significant viewpoints through the inclusion of multiple guests, through the host’s questioning and in the introductory segment. The Authority considered most of the alleged inaccuracies were unlikely to have significantly affected viewers’ understanding of the broadcast as a whole. The majority found one of the comments in the broadcast (relating to the characterisation of Parker) was materially inaccurate and this issue created harm sufficient to justify a restriction on the right to freedom of expression. Upheld by Majority: Accuracy, Not Upheld: Balance No Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item briefly described a ruling of the International Court of Justice in relation to Israel’s actions in Rafah, and an academic’s perspective on the potential reaction of the international community. The complainant argued other perspectives and information should have been included, the description of the ruling was inaccurate, and the various statements, omissions and inaccuracies contributed to breaches of multiple standards. The Authority found the brief item did not constitute a ‘discussion’, so the balance standard did not apply. With regard to accuracy, the Authority found the description of the ruling was reasonable and the broadcaster had exercised reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. It also found the academic’s reference to ‘attacking’ by Israel constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply and was materially accurate....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a TVNZ news report concerning an Israeli military operation in the Occupied West Bank breached the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as the requirement to present additional perspectives is reduced for programmes narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger complex matter, and the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage.  While noting the balance standard is not directed at bias, the Authority also identified no bias in the language used in the broadcast. The Authority also found reasonable viewers were unlikely to be misled by the content, language used or absence of further context. Not Upheld: Balance and Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a clarification broadcast by 1News, stating ‘Israel says it does not target civilians in any of its actions’, breached the accuracy standard because the statement was a ‘blatant inaccuracy’. The Authority found the broadcast did not state as fact that Israel does not target civilians. It accurately reported Israel’s official position and clearly attributed the statement to Israel. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld complaints a segment on AM interviewing the SPCA’s Science Officer, Dr Alison Vaughan, breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. Dr Vaughan discussed the organisation’s desire to end commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand and invited viewers to contact the Minister of Racing to support that cause. The complainants considered the segment presented only one perspective on the issue and did not attempt to balance it with other perspectives. The Authority found the segment was clearly introduced as presenting a particular perspective, and other perspectives would have been known to viewers given the issue had long-standing interest in NZ. The segment was also materially accurate, or otherwise reflecting Dr Vaughan’s analysis, comment or opinion, to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The fairness standard did not apply as no organisation was referred to in the broadcast. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine an accuracy complaint about a news item referring to ‘Cyclone Gabrielle’ when, at the relevant time, it was a sub-tropical low. Given the sub-tropical low remained an extreme weather event, the Authority considered the complaint was trivial and did not warrant determination. Declined to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial): Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1 News report breached the accuracy standard by describing ivermectin as a drug for animals. The Authority found the accuracy standard was not breached as the statements were materially accurate and were not misleading. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Queer Aotearoa in which it was stated the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint was made under three standards: discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness. The Authority found the statement was a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion rather than something likely to incite discrimination or denigration. Regarding accuracy, the Authority noted the comment was consistent with Human Rights Commission guidance on the interpretation of the HRA, and a reasonable interpretation of the HRA. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness ...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview with a delegate of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation. The complainant alleged that the interview was unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate as the host was rude, offensive, underprepared and did not allow her to read from a prepared statement. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard as, among other reasons, the interviewee was a delegate from a large union, who can be expected to handle robust questioning. The other standards raised either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on Mother’s Day profiling a women’s duck shooting group in the Hawke’s Bay. The complaint alleged the tone of the item was disrespectful to wildlife including native wildlife, through irreverent comments such as describing duck shooting as ‘fun’ and good for ‘mental health’, which was ‘deeply offensive’; and it lacked balance and accuracy by not telling the other side of the story from the growing number of people who oppose duck shooting, or providing broader context about wildlife decline including among the four native species that are ‘allowed to be shot’. The Authority found the item was clearly framed as a light-hearted human-interest story rather than an in-depth exploration of a controversial issue requiring balancing viewpoints. Its tone and content were unlikely to disproportionately disturb or offend most viewers, in the context....

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint that interviews on The Detail discussing a ‘power imbalance’ between retirement village operators and residents breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The complainant alleged the broadcast was unbalanced and unfair as it did not provide an alternative perspective from a retirement village operator or the industry, and the statement, ‘operators are just sitting on the weekly fee’, was inaccurate. The Authority found the broadcast was signalled as coming from a particular point of view and viewers were unlikely to expect a countering perspective in the broadcast. The Authority also found the alleged inaccurate statement was clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion and was not materially misleading. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Morning Report with Sue Grey, lawyer for the parents of a baby whose urgent heart surgery had been delayed due to the parents’ concerns regarding blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19. The essence of the complaints was that the host did not listen to Grey, constantly interrupted her, did not allow her to answer the questions, and pushed his personal views. The Authority found the interview did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny that could reasonably be expected in an interview with Grey on this subject, noting in particular that Grey was making claims contrary to public health advice, and was able to put forward key points in the course of the eight-minute interview. Therefore the broadcast overall did not result in any unfairness to Grey....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a discussion between the hosts of AM and an interview with Prime Minister Chris Hipkins breached multiple standards for including statements from the hosts questioning the usefulness and purpose of Government inquiries into various sectors. The Authority found the balance and fairness standards were not breached as the interview with Hipkins provided an alternative viewpoint, and allowed Hipkins to comment on the Government’s reasoning for the inquiry. The accuracy standard did not apply, as the comments were analysis, commentary and opinion, and the discrimination and denigration, and offensive and disturbing content standards either were not breached or did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...