Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Beyond the Darklands: Antonie Dixon – case study of convicted murderer Antonie Dixon based on the recollections of friends, family, neighbours, police and others as well as analysis by psychologist – programme mentioned his marriage to the complainant and referred to her several times – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about the complainant – complainant’s children not identifiable in the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – neighbour’s comments were clearly her recollection of events – programme not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and children not treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host made comments about television personality who hosted Anzac Day programme on Māori Television – said she would have been paid “$25,000 or thereabouts” – questioned whether she would have “been allowed to take that lovely piece of greenstone home with her” – host also called Māori Television “disgusting apartheid TV station” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly speculation – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not a “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – promos for the programme contained footage not used in the actual broadcast – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – person alleged to have been treated unfairly did not take part in and was not referred to in the item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – Rodney Hide MP – "scam buster" – spoke at seminar in Fiji – affidavit that his presence gave investors confidence to invest – investment was a scam – inaccurate – unbalanced – unfair FindingsS. 4(1)(d) and Standard 4 – reasonable opportunities given – no uphold Standard 5 – not unfair – no uphold Standard 6 – inaccuracies (1) different use of the term "family"; (2) not a "self-proclaimed scam buster"; (3) affidavit not dated that day – uphold on these three points – no other inaccuracies No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An affidavit, which recorded that Rodney Hide MP’s presence as a speaker at an investment seminar in Fiji had given a man and his family the confidence to invest, was reported in an item broadcast on One News on 15 May 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reported on a young man who died of meningococcal disease after being assessed and sent home by medical professionals – reporter interviewed the Chief Executive of Northland District Health Board about the circumstances surrounding the man’s treatment – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item did not create a misleading impression as to the doctor’s qualifications but clearly stated that he was a “doctor” and “senior trainee” close to sitting his exams – did not create a misleading impression by omitting information about the risks associated with lumbar punctures – the decision not to administer the test earlier was based on a misdiagnosis of the man’s condition as opposed to the perceived risks of the procedure – not inaccurate to report that the man died from meningitis – not upheld Standard 6…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on Government’s spending review to assist with the cost of the Christchurch earthquake – showed footage of students helping with the clean-up and stated that “Canterbury students have been out on the streets cleaning up Christchurch, but today they weren’t being thanked, they were being targeted by the Finance Minister” – showed Finance Minister stating that the Government was not “ruling anything in or out” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement that students were being “targeted” amounted to political commentary – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr English is a political figure – item clearly portrayed his position on interest-free student loans – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 What’s Really In Our Food? – included a human experiment to test the effects of Omega 3 on attention span in young boys – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – experiment was clearly intended to be light-hearted and entertaining and did not purport to be scientifically rigorous or reliable – conclusions drawn from the experiment were very vague and qualified by words such as “could’ and “may” – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of What’s Really In Our Food? , a weekly television series investigating different food groups, and exploring the potential health benefits and/or risks associated with those foods, contained a human experiment to test the effects of Omega 3 on attention span in young boys....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Bullies, a three-part documentary series, discussed the issue of bullying in schools. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the documentary was unbalanced and misleading because it did not discuss the success of certain nationwide bullying prevention programmes. The documentary did discuss various anti-bullying programmes and was not otherwise misleading. Which anti-bullying initiatives to feature, and in what detail, was a matter of editorial discretion for the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] An episode of Bullies, a three-part documentary series, discussed the issue of bullying in schools. [2] David White complained that the documentary was unbalanced and misleading because it did not discuss the success of nationwide bullying prevention programmes. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards as set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast of the personal views of certain celebrities who supported changing the flag resulted in an unbalanced and partial programme. While the item featured several celebrities in support of the alternative flag, it also mentioned some who supported the current flag. In the context of the item this was a sufficient acknowledgement of significant viewpoints on the issue. Furthermore, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the different perspectives on the flag referendum issue. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A 3 News item covered a high-profile New Zealand equestrian’s reportedly controversial exclusion from Equestrian Sports New Zealand’s high performance squad. It included an interview with the head of ESNZ, and briefly showed a copy of the equestrian magazine Show Circuit on his desk. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached standards because it wrongly associated Show Circuit with ESNZ. The inclusion of the shot of the magazine was incidental to the story and did not suggest that Show Circuit supported ESNZ, as alleged. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming   Introduction [1] A 3 News item covered a high-profile New Zealand equestrian’s reportedly controversial exclusion from Equestrian Sports New Zealand’s high performance squad....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

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. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that statements made during Uncharted with Sam Neill were inaccurate. A complaint was made that host Sam Neill and an interviewee during the programme implied that missionaries primarily came to New Zealand for the purpose of acquiring land, which was misleading and misrepresented their good work. The Authority considered that the programme was clearly framed from the outset as a chance for untold or unexplored stories and perspectives to be expressed. In these circumstances, the Authority found that the statements complained about were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion and were therefore not subject to the requirements of the accuracy standard. The Authority’s intervention in upholding the complaint would therefore represent an unreasonable and unjustified limit on the right to freedom of expression....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the use of the term ‘disputed’ in a Newshub item, to describe the land the United States (US) Embassy sits on in East Jerusalem, breached the accuracy standard. The broadcast covered a recent protest in Gaza over the opening of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and the US calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel. The Authority noted that the accuracy standard requires only that the broadcaster make ‘reasonable efforts’ to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast. In this case, the reporter used the term ‘disputed’ in the ordinary sense of the word, to identify the US Embassy’s location, which is the subject of dispute between Palestine and Israel....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments made by Paul Henry during Rebuilding Paradise with Paul Henry undermined the Director-General of Health’s directions regarding compliance with COVID-19 Alert-Level conditions. Mr Henry noted there were no new cases of COVID-19 on the day of broadcast and commented, ‘I don’t want Dr Ashley Bloomfield to threaten me and you with the “if New Zealanders aren’t good at Level 3, they won’t get to Level 2” warning. I realise people think he walks on water, but I don’t. …Obedience in the population is the job of the police and, god help us, the reluctant [Police] Commissioner’. Noting the importance of the right to freedom of expression and that Mr Henry was clearly giving his views on a topic of high public interest, the Authority found no actual or potential harm that justified regulatory intervention....

The Authority did not uphold two complaints that comments made by Mike Hosking during his Mike’s Minute segment breached the discrimination and denigration and accuracy standards. Discussing two recent immigration policy decisions by the Government, Mr Hosking commented, ‘discrimination is no bad thing’ and, ‘Where do too many of the radicalised nutters come from? That particular part of the planet [Africa and the Middle East]. . . We don’t want to take the risk of a poor-ish person’s parent arriving – so why a jihadist? ’ The Authority acknowledged the complainants’ concerns that Mr Hosking’s choice of language was inflammatory. However, it found that in the context of the item, which carried public interest, the comments complained about were brief and moderated by the remainder of the item. Mr Hosking was expressing his genuinely held opinion on a legitimate issue, rather than being malicious or nasty....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast discussing racial tensions arising from coalition government policies. The item mentioned a 1News Verian poll on whether the coalition government’s policies were increasing, decreasing, or making no real difference to racial tensions in Aotearoa New Zealand. The complainant alleged the broadcast, and the poll were ‘incredibly biased’ and that the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it raised issues under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards that could all be dismissed on grounds previously explained to the complainant; the broadcast could not be considered to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the complaint concerned issues of personal preference and had been adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s decision....