Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview with a woman concerning her removal from an anti-co-governance meeting on Morning Report breached the balance, fairness and accuracy standards. The complainant alleged the broadcaster should have included balancing comment from, or interviewed Julian Batchelor (the speaker at the event concerned). The Authority found the interview did not require balancing comment as it did not ‘discuss’ the issue of co-governance, and did not treat Batchelor unfairly. The woman’s removal alone did not constitute a controversial issue of public importance. The accuracy standard did not apply as the complainant did not allege any statements were misleading. 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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-046 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P G CURRAN of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-042 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P M MACCALLUM of Havelock North Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting on march to Parliament opposing Civil Union Bill and other government policies, and reaction to the march from various parties – allegedly unbalanced, unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interestsFindings Standard 4 (balance) – reasonable effort made to present significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcast was impartial and objective – not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no persons or organisations treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – child not humiliated or exploited – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 3 News item broadcast on TV3 at 6. 00pm on 23 August 2004 reported on the march to Parliament by those opposed to the Civil Union Bill, and the reaction to the march....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion about taxi safety – referred to taxi drivers as “cabbies” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “cabbies” not pejorative – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster not required to present views of non-Taxi Federation companies – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – did not imply that non-Taxi Federation members were at the “bottom end” of the industry – not unfair – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – programme was ambiguous as to whether Taxi Federation represented all companies – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintFair Go – comments about complainant which collects membership fees for fitness centres – complaint that item unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 6 – one aspect of discussion of credit contracts omitted relevant information provided by complainant – unfair – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Some of the activities of Adfit Membership Services Ltd, a company which collects membership fees for more than 100 fitness centres, were investigated in an item on Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 10 September 2003. Fair Go is a consumer rights programme which looks at issues from the consumers' perspective....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 80/94 Dated the 19th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D. LOW of Kaeo Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-056 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by G P COSTELLO of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryAn item on the programme 5. 30 with Jude, broadcast on TV One on 4 November 1998 at 5. 40 pm, featured a representative from a health products company discussing women’s health with the presenter. In particular, soy products, phytoestrogens, and commercial products containing them were discussed in relation to the relief they provided to women with menopausal symptoms. Mrs James complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that statements made in the item were inaccurate and unbalanced. She did not, she wrote, see any indication that the programme was an advertisement or advertorial, and she therefore assumed that it was classified as a documentary. TVNZ responded that the segment was "transparently advertorial in nature". It was paid for by the health products company, but TVNZ retained editorial control over it, the broadcaster said....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – promos contained the word “next” – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – complaint trivial and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Prior to a commercial break during 3 News on 12 July 2007, a promo was shown that read “next – Top Chef”. [2] Prior to a commercial break during 3 News on 13 July 2007, a promo was shown that read “next – Project Runway”. Complaint [3] R Dodd made a formal complaint to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the use of the word “next” was inaccurate and in breach of broadcasting standards....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on a disqualification hearing for a greyhound trainer was inaccurate and unfair. The complainant argued the broadcast’s description of the facts leading to two charges against the trainer (related to failing to ensure the welfare of two dogs), was misleading. The complainant also argued it was unfair to comment on the trainer’s potential disqualification sentence before it had been finalised, impeding the trainer’s ‘right to a fair trial’. The Authority found the broadcast was not materially misleading overall, or reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy, and did not give rise to any unfairness to the trainer. The public interest in the story outweighed the low risk of harm. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

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 an accuracy complaint about a 1News segment on the dangers of crossing sand bars. In the segment, a Coastguard representative said, ‘We recommend crossing the bar at high or low tide, so we can try and take the current out of the equation’. The complaint alleged the recommendation to cross at low tide was ‘wrong’ and ‘dangerous’ and Coastguard were not an authoritative source regarding maritime matters. The Authority considered there were reasonable arguments for a finding the statement was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The segment’s overall emphasis was on the dangers and complexity in crossing sand bars, and the statement addressed just one of several risk factors mentioned. In any event, the Authority found it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on information provided by the Coastguard representative on this topic. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 121/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS MORGAN of Kihikihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J R Morris (Acting Chairperson) L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a 1News item breached the discrimination and denigration, and accuracy standards by stating allegations of a ‘white genocide’ in South Africa were a ‘conspiracy theory’ and omitting to include footage shown by United States President Donald Trump to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. The Authority found the statement and omission of footage were not materially misleading because the ‘white genocide’ allegations have been repeatedly debunked and widely discredited, with numerous sources calling the allegations a ‘conspiracy theory’. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of Mediawatch, which contained commentary on a recently released Media Council decision concerning an article about puberty blockers, breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found the programme was sufficiently balanced, noting its focus was on the Media Council’s decision (including its implications for journalists) and that it did not purport to be a balanced examination of the safety or reversibility of puberty blockers. It found alleged inaccuracies in the broadcast constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Taking into account the Media Council’s role as a public-facing organisation, the Authority noted it can reasonably expect its decisions to be subject to public scrutiny, and found the critique of its decision did not result in unfairness. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards about a Q + A interview with David Seymour on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged TVNZ’s reporting on the Bill, in this broadcast and in general, was biased; interviewer Jack Tame inaccurately claimed the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a partnership and erroneously cited the ‘Fleming version’ of the Treaty; and it was unfair to ‘only present one side of an argument’. The Authority found the balance standard does not apply to concerns of bias, and the audience was likely to be aware of significant perspectives on the Bill from this broadcast and other media coverage. It also found it was not misleading to suggest the Treaty/Te Tiriti is a partnership or cite the official English text of the Treaty. The fairness standard did not apply....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a ‘Vote Smart’ segment on The Project, host Jesse Mulligan discussed what he considered to be the ‘horribl[e] underfund[ing]’ of the Department of Conservation (DoC). Mr Mulligan said, ‘DoC doesn’t have a big lobby group to argue their case. You know when Big Dairy puts their hand out, they get offered up to $400 million to spend on irrigation. That’s DoC’s whole budget, but it’s being spent on growing dairy, which, if anything, makes the conservation job even harder’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comparison made between DoC and Crown Irrigation was inaccurate and misleading as the funding models of these two entities are different. The comment was not a statement of fact which triggered the requirements of the accuracy standard....