Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Coast FM News reported that Zero Commission ‘has been making low ball offers’ to shareholders of various companies. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that Zero Commission and its shareholders were treated unfairly as no opportunity was given to respond to the claims or the negative impression created. The minority did not consider the item was unfair as Zero Commission could reasonably expect some commentary from time to time that it would not like or agree with. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the use of the term ‘low ball’ was inaccurate as this was a subjective term, not a point of fact. The controversial issues standard was not applicable because the item focused squarely on one company, not a controversial issue of public importance....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on the most recent report of the IPCC and summarised some of the report’s findings, including predictions of more frequent storms and droughts. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the summary was inaccurate, as the broadcaster provided information demonstrating a sufficient basis for the statements made. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported on the most recent report (AR5 Report) released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The item was introduced:Rising sea levels, more extinct species and possible food shortages. That’s the grim prediction by a global gathering of top scientists who say, for the first time, we are responsible for climate change. And as [reporter’s name] reports, New Zealand’s set to feel the heat too....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-096 Decision No: 1997-097 Decision No: 1997-098 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintInside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision – documentary – abortion –inaccurate statements – unbalanced – undermined New Zealand legislation FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2a – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 4 – programme balanced – no upholdStandard 5 and Guidelines 5b, 5d & 5e – mixture of fact & opinion – accurate and impartial – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Inside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision was a documentary which followed three women while they made a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Several other women, who had been through the same experience, were also interviewed on the programme. The documentary was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 28 November 2002....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 1. Holmes – 18 and 19 November 2003 – complainant director of Network Visas NZ Ltd – in dispute with 13 Romanian students – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – not company’s registered office – complainant given inadequate opportunity to respond – a number of factual inaccuracies – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair 2. Holmes – 18 November 2003 – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – after broadcast, complainant visited by landlord – complainant’s wife who operates beauty business from the address felt intimidated – alleged breach of privacy 3....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item examining the firearms licensing system and whether it was “too easy to get your licence” – showed hidden camera footage of volunteers taking firearms safety test – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – majority considers item failed to properly explain the place of the firearms safety test within the entire licensing scheme – viewers deprived of a significant perspective on whether it was too easy to obtain a firearms licence in New Zealand – majority uphold Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item did not denigrate or treat MSC instructors unfairly – licensed firearms-holders not a “section of the community” as envisaged by the guideline – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eye to Eye – host asked his guests whether the Labour or Māori Party candidate would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election – did not mention a third candidate for the electorate – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Eye to Eye, broadcast on TV One at 9. 30am on 5 February 2005, the host asked his two female guests whether Dover Samuels (Labour Party) or Hone Harawira (Māori Party) would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – claimed that product leaves timber vulnerable to borer or rot – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – two statements in breach of Standard 5 – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Osmose as manufacturer of TimberSaver – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $1,500 Payment of costs to the Crown $1,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on TV One on One News at 6pm on 12 July 2005 stated that TimberSaver (also known as T1. 2), a timber product being used on homes in the wake of the “leaky homes” scandal, was vulnerable to borer or rot....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about new pricing structures for national calls at Telecom – graphic stated $0. 08c per minute on national calls – correct price $0. 18c per minute – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic inaccurate – significant mistake requiring correction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6:00pm on 26 August 2004, contained an item on new pricing structures at Telecom for national calls. During the item, a graphic noted the following: “Anytime Plan” National Calling: $0. 08c per minute National Capped: $2. 75 (up to two hours) Home to Mobile: $0. 48c calls to 027 & 025, $0. 55c calls to 021 & 029 [2] The correct price for national calls was in fact $0. 18c per minute....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes. The complainant argued that the item was misleading and unbalanced because the claims were presented as ‘fact’ and ‘inevitable’ rather than as ‘extreme projections’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, as it clearly consisted of opinion and predictions, and was not presented as fact....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the release of the Government’s Budget that day – discussed impact of the budget on a range of New Zealanders including three “high earners” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – brief references to the incomes of three high earners did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements about the impact of the budget on three high earners were not material points of fact – viewers would have understood that the point being made was that they would have more money each week than lower earners – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – references to incomes of high earners did not result in them being treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989George FM – ran a competition to win $2,500 worth of travel – complainant qualified for entry into the competition but was not included in the final prize draw – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to on the day of the prize draw so Standard 6 does not apply – unfortunate that a mistake was made but the broadcaster handled the situation appropriately – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] Between 4 and 8 October 2010, George FM ran a competition with a chance to win $2,500 worth of travel....

ComplaintNational Radio – News item – Labour leader calls for support – alleged to be a party political announcement – broadcaster not independent FindingsPrinciple 6, Guideline 6a – sources cited – objective presentation – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A call from the leader of the Labour Party for party supporters to vote Labour, rather than for a potential coalition party, was reported in a news item broadcast on National Radio at 3. 00am on 26 July 2002. [2] Doug McElwain complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item sounded like a party political broadcast, and accordingly, breached the requirement for broadcasters to maintain an independent news service. [3] In response, RNZ said the item cited the sources of information referred to and there was nothing in the item which suggested its independence had been called into question....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-159:Greenpeace New Zealand Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-159 PDF1. 53 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-055:John Carter MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-055 PDF359. 68 KB...

During a segment on The AM Show, host Duncan Garner referred to an individual as a ‘woolly woofter’. A complaint that the use of this term breached broadcasting standards, as it was homophobic and offensive, was not upheld. The Authority found that, while some viewers may have found the term inappropriate or offensive, the use of the term was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or seriously violate community norms. In the context of the programme, upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Law and Order...