Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Is Your House Killing You? – featured family in Queensland – father had used a substantial amount of timber treated with Copper Chrome Arsenate (CCA) for landscaping and decking – programme stated that exposure to the chemicals in CCA-treated timber could cause serious health effects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts by relying on scientific experts – mostly expert opinion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Is Your House Killing You? was broadcast on TV One at 8pm on Friday 11 December 2009....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-034 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item featured a woman who claimed to have suffered terrible experiences while in state care in the 1960s – photo shown of the woman as a young child with five other children – allegedly in breach of privacy and accuracy 3 News – item reported on government’s decision to bring forward a review of alleged abuse suffered by people while in state care during the 1960s and 70s – made reference to the 60 Minutes item and the woman who alleged she had been abused – showed the same photo as contained in the 60 Minutes item – allegedly in breach of privacy and accuracy Findings60 Minutes and 3 News Standard 3 (privacy) – children not identifiable beyond close family and friends – did not disclose any private facts – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – use of the phrases “Prime Minister of England” and “future King of England” – allegedly inaccurateTe Karere – use of the phrase “Te Kuini o Ingarangi” instead of “Te Kuini o Aotearoa” allegedly inaccurate and in breach of law and orderOne News – use of the phrase “Queen of England” allegedly inaccurate and in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 – nothing in the items inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldStandard 5 – phrase in common usage – viewers would have known who was being referred to – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] On 8 April 2005 at 6pm, Close Up broadcast an item covering the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, and the funeral of Pope John Paul II....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-010 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by H R CORRIN of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: Did Mark Lundy Kill His Wife and Daughter?...

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 1989 New Zealand First Election Advertisement – stated that “only Winston and New Zealand First can save the foreshore and seabed for our family” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement was clearly opinion and promotion of New Zealand First policy – guideline 5a to Standard 5 exempts opinion from standards of accuracy – election programmes broadcast in robust political environment and listeners would have interpreted the advertisement accordingly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An advertisement for New Zealand First was broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 21 November 2011 at approximately 10. 40pm....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item reported on ex-All Black who now lived in Japan and his ongoing struggle with depression – reporter stated “Alone in Tokyo, population 35 million, chaotic, frenetic, intense. Perhaps the last place in the world you’d expect to find someone trying to stay balanced after coming through the blackest period of his life” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – term “chaotic” used to convey reporter’s opinion – not a material point of fact – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One on 24 October 2010, reported on an ex-All Black who now lived in Japan and his ongoing struggle with depression. The reporter travelled to Tokyo to interview him about the imminent publication of his book....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-133:Associate Minister of Health (Hon Maurice Williamson) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-133 PDF1. 02 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter made reference to ‘bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets’ in relation to a photo of a cruise ship. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was inaccurate and in poor taste. While derogatory, it did not reach the threshold for threatening current norms of good taste and decency. The comment was an off-the-cuff remark delivered in a light-hearted tone, without invective, and was obviously intended to be humorous. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] At the end of a One News weather segment, the weather presenter showed an image of a cruise ship anchored in Hawkes Bay, saying: …they’re not disgorging logs; they’re disgorging bejewelled, corpulent, affluent tourists with big fat wallets....

A complaint that Malcolm Brenner was treated unfairly when interviewed for a segment on Dom, Meg and Randell about his previous sexual relationship with a dolphin has been upheld. MediaWorks interviewed Mr Brenner about his relationship with a dolphin but ultimately decided not to broadcast the interview in full. They did however broadcast a small segment of the interview in which one of the hosts called Mr Brenner ‘sick’ and stormed out of the interview. The Authority found that Mr Brenner was treated unfairly and was not adequately informed about the nature of his participation in the broadcast. In particular, he was misled into thinking a four minute version of the interview would be broadcast (rather than only the brief segment including the host’s reaction to him), when the final broadcast had already occurred....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Morning Report which briefly discussed soil contamination at, and the possible repurposing of, a chemical plant site in Paritutu, New Plymouth. The complainant, an interviewee on the broadcast, argued the item misrepresented likely contamination levels by citing test results from outside of the plant site, and through a comment that the site was cleaner than that at Mapua. The Authority found the statements complained about either were not materially inaccurate, or were clearly distinguishable as opinion, to which the requirement for factual accuracy does not apply. The broadcast was unlikely to mislead listeners. The balance and fairness standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of The Project breached the accuracy standard. It stated Joe Rogan had taken ‘horse wormer ivermectin as a COVID treatment’. The Authority found the accuracy standard was not breached as the statements were materially accurate and not misleading. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

An episode of The Detail explored the Productivity Commission’s recommendation the Government review Aotearoa New Zealand’s regulatory framework around genetically modified organisms to ensure they remain fit for purpose. The complainant stated the broadcast was unbalanced and misleading as it, among other reasons, overemphasised the benefits of GMOs, did not critique the Commission, was inaccurate in several respects, and suggested issues with GMOs were largely ethical rather than scientific. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the broadcast was balanced, particularly as it was focusing on a single issue. It also found the broadcast was materially accurate and unlikely to mislead listeners. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld complaints an item on Sunday breached the accuracy, balance, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast featured a 30 minute report on Aotearoa New Zealand’s medical staffing shortages, and explored whether this issue could be alleviated by the migration of medical staff from the USA, particularly those dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v Wade. The complainants considered the broadcast unbalanced, favouring a ‘pro-choice’ perspective....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint an item on Newshub Live at 6pm breached the accuracy and balance standards, for including a statement linking the Auckland Anniversary floods to climate change. The complainant considered the broadcast should not have contained reference to climate change, and that climate change should not be presented as fact. Given the Authority has previously found the existence of climate change caused by humans is not a controversial issue of public importance for the purpose of the balance standard, and the accuracy standard is only concerned with material statements of fact, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy, Balance...

The Authority has partially upheld a complaint in relation to the accuracy of a Newshub Live at 6pm item about a person alleged to have harmed greyhounds. It alleged details about the accused were inaccurate and images of an unrelated dog accompanying the report were misleading. The Authority found the relevant details regarding the accused were not materially inaccurate. It found the broadcaster was correct in upholding the complaint initially in relation to the images used, but action taken in response was not sufficient to remedy the likely reputational damage to the handler and industry. The Authority held publication of this decision was sufficient remedy for the breach in all the circumstances. Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken) No Orders...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a news report on 1News breached several standards, by using the phrase Hamas ‘fighters’, rather than Hamas ‘terrorists’. The Authority found the choice of word could not reasonably be said to encourage the different treatment of Jewish or Israeli people, devalue their reputation, or embed negative stereotypes about them. Under accuracy, the Authority found the word was not inaccurate, was not material in the context of the broadcast as a whole, and there was no harm at a level justifying limitation of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and editorial independence. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Balance and Fairness...