Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Morning Report featured an interview with a Social Policy Advisor at the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), who discussed CAB’s experience assisting the public with income support applications to Work & Income New Zealand (WINZ). The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that this interview was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate. The Authority found that because of the nature of the item – which comprised a brief interview with one individual, who approached a widely reported issue from a clearly identified perspective – audiences would not have expected to hear MSD’s response to the comments made....

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. ] A complaint from Seafood New Zealand Ltd (Seafood NZ) about an interview between Morning Report host Guyon Espiner and Dr Russell Norman of Greenpeace was not upheld. Dr Norman and Mr Espiner discussed Greenpeace’s view that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had been ‘captured’ by the fishing industry, and why MPI has not prosecuted anyone for under-reporting whiting catches, with reference to a leaked MPI report from 2012. While RNZ acknowledged the interview did not meet its internal editorial guidelines, as it should have at least acknowledged the views of other stakeholders, the Authority did not find any breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority found the interview was unlikely to mislead listeners as it was clear that the interview comprised Dr Norman’s and Greenpeace’s opinions and analysis....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from two complainants, a Christian organisation and its director, about an episode of Sunday which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. The director, ‘X’, was filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon X’s interest in seclusion and that, on its face, this broadcast breached their privacy. However, the Authority found that the high level of public interest, both in the programme as a whole and in the hidden camera footage, justified the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera....

During Mike Hosking Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, Mike Yardley (standing in for Mr Hosking) briefly mentioned the flouting of COVID-19 rules by two named Sky News UK journalists and stated: ‘veteran journalist Adam Boulton is also involved in this’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the broadcast breached the accuracy standard by misleading listeners to believe Mr Boulton was one of those who flouted the rules. The Authority acknowledged that, without further clarification, the broadcast may have created that impression. However in all the circumstances the potential harm in a New Zealand broadcasting context was not at a level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an item on AM breached several standards including accuracy. The broadcast attributed several acts of violence against police, during the February–March 2022 protest and occupation of Parliament grounds, to protesters. The complainant stated there was no evidence the events occurred, and that there was no evidence the violence was caused by protesters. The complainant also submitted the broadcast implied a reporter was ‘manhandled’ on Parliament grounds when in fact she was on Lambton Quay. The Authority found the broadcast was not materially misleading and the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Newshub Live at 6pm report regarding water fluoridation and the Three Waters proposal breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. While the issue of how to improve Aotearoa New Zealand’s fluoridation is a controversial issue of public importance, the report included major perspectives on this issue, including alternatives such as central government orders, imposition of penalties and better data collection, as well as the Three Waters proposal. On this basis the balance standard was not breached. The complainant’s submissions under the accuracy standard concerned analysis to which the standard does not apply. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard in relation to an interview on AM with Dr Russell Norman about agricultural emissions. The complainant alleged Dr Norman’s statements concerning dairy cow numbers, the herd getting larger, and the amount of effluent produced by cows were inaccurate. The Authority found two of the statements were materially accurate and would not have misled the audience, and the third was analysis, comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority declined to determine two complaints as they did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that warrant a determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Fair Go which covered a customer’s experience in purchasing a second-hand vehicle from Universal Imports. The customer did not obtain a pre-purchase report and when the vehicle broke down she attempted to reject the purchase under the Consumer Guarantees Act. A Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal ruling found in her favour. After the ruling, she ‘copped abuse, personal insults and name calling’ connected with the Universal Imports issues. The complainant alleged the programme was unfair to Universal Imports and its owner, and was inaccurate in how it presented the situation. The Authority found the business and its owner were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, and the programme was materially accurate. The complainant’s concerns about the use of aspects of his YouTube videos are not capable of being addressed under the standards....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 84/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D V BLOMFIELD of Waikanae Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 150/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J M STEVENSON of Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint Radio New Zealand’s news headlines regarding the government’s anticipated plans for replacement of the Interislander ferries breached the accuracy standard. The complainant said the headlines, stating the government’s plan was ‘reportedly to buy two smaller ships for $900 million, much more than the $551 million Labour’s paid’, were ‘mischievous’ noting the government’s intention to reduce costs, the ship cost component was implied to be ‘total project costs’ suggesting a substantial increase, and the comparisons of partial costs were ‘meaningless and speculation. ’ The Authority found the headlines were comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply....

...

BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-070 Dated the 22nd day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR B BALACHANDRAN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – discussed concerns that the product was defective and putting homes at risk – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – seen overall, item seriously criticised TimberSaver product – no scientific evidence provided to refute criticisms – no evidence provided of quality and suitability of product – unbalanced – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – scientist on programme not independent – conflict of interest – contrary to guideline 5e – upheld – other aspects of accuracy complaint not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – seen overall, item unfair to Osmose – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,000 Payment of costs to the Crown $2,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that a One News item "fundamentally misrepresented" the Electoral Finance Bill by saying, first, that "new rules for election spending will mean big donations to political parties' campaigns will no longer be kept secret", and second, that "other secret donors would also be outed – donations over $5000 would have to be declared”. The complainant said the Bill required no greater degree of disclosure of the amounts of donations and the identities of donors than the existing law. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ said the story was about third party activities at election time, rather than donations to political parties. As third parties would have to register with the Electoral Commission if they intended to spend more than $5,000 on an election campaign, their identity would no longer be secret....

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....