Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview with ACT Party leader David Seymour, on the day of the final reading in Parliament of the End of Life Choice Bill, was unbalanced. The complainant submitted that Mr Seymour was given free licence to give his views from his perspective as the sponsor and a strong advocate of the Bill, and it was important that either someone with opposing views was also given an opportunity, or that the interviewer critically questioned him, given the item’s proximity to the final reading of the Bill. The Authority accepted that issues surrounding the Bill and the euthanasia debate more broadly amounted to a controversial issue of public importance that triggered the requirements of the balance standard....

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The Authority has not upheld complaints an interview on Saturday Morning between Kim Hill and Dr Kathleen Stock, a gender critical philosopher, breached broadcasting standards, including the discrimination and denigration, balance and accuracy standards. The broadcast discussed Dr Stock’s perspective on gender identity and her experiences resulting from voicing her perspective, having resigned from her position following a student campaign that accused her of transphobia. The Authority acknowledged the potential harm of the interview, but ultimately found the importance of freedom of expression outweighed any harm caused. The broadcast was clearly signalled as presenting Dr Stock’s perspective, to which she was entitled, and throughout the interview Hill challenged Dr Stock’s views, leaving the audience with a more balanced impression on the issue....

An item on 1 News reported on the National Party leadership battle between Simon Bridges MP and Christopher Luxon MP. In describing both contenders, the reporter referred to Bridges as an ‘absolute political mongrel’. The complainant stated this reference breached various standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it was inappropriate to describe the Minister as a mongrel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the term had a separate, complimentary, meaning which was clearly intended in this context. The discrimination and denigration, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Parliamentary Question Time – showed Deputy Prime Minister at times when he was not answering or asking questions – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard S6 (balance) – programme did not approach the proceedings from any particular perspective – balance not required – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Coverage of Parliamentary Question Time was broadcast on Sky News at 2pm on 7 April 2005. Complaint[2] Michael Gibson complained that the broadcast was unbalanced because it focused on the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, at times when he was not asking or answering questions. The coverage had shown Dr Cullen “grinning and derisively showing a dismissive attitude towards the Opposition”, he said. [3] Mr Gibson argued that the broadcaster had broken the same rules which had caused TV3 to be banned from filming in Parliament recently....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Q+A discussing the lack of diversity among the National Party’s then top-12 Members of Parliament. In the segment, panellist Laila Harre commented, ‘the whole front kind of line-up looks like they’ve had a bit of an accident with the bleach’. The complaint was that this comment was inappropriate, unprofessional and racist. The Authority found the comment did not threaten community standards of taste and decency, or encourage discrimination or denigration of any section of the community, in the context of a political discussion in the public interest. The remaining standards complained about either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about a Newshub item in which the presenter commented, ‘And I thought the only reason we watch Aussie Rules [AFL] was for the short shorts’, has not been upheld by the Authority. The Authority found that the comment, while inappropriate, did not reach the threshold to be considered a serious violation of community norms of good taste and decency. The Authority acknowledged the importance of contextual factors in considering whether the standards have been breached, including the nature of Newshub as an unclassified news programme and audience expectations of the broadcast. The Authority recognised that the statement was not made with malice or nastiness and found the comment did not breach the discrimination and denigration, balance or fairness standards....

A complaint that segments on Morning Report which discussed the abortion legislative reform process were unbalanced was not upheld. First, the Authority found the complaint amounted to a ‘formal complaint’ for the purposes of the Broadcasting Act 1989. However the Authority found the items did not breach the balance standard as they clearly approached the topic of abortion legislative reform from a particular perspective and that listeners could reasonably be expected to have a level of awareness of significant arguments in the debate. Not Upheld: Balance...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging 1News breached the balance standard by failing to cover comments made by Labour MP Ginny Andersen. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preference regarding matters of editorial discretion. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Promos for South Park, Tosh. O and Bombshell: The Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior screened during the wildlife programme Africa’s Fishing Leopards, which was classified G. The promos contained potentially offensive language, which was censored, and verbal references to an ‘act of terror’ and ‘murder’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that it was inappropriate to broadcast promos for AO-classified programmes during G-programmes, as they contained adult themes. The Authority noted that it is acceptable to screen promos for AO programmes during G programmes, provided that the promo complies with the classification of the host programme. It found that in this case, the use of censored coarse language did not breach standards, but noted that in order to maintain a G classification, broadcasters must take care to adequately edit any AO or PGR content....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Newshub Nation, featuring electrical engineer and Pike River Mine researcher, Richard Healey. Mr Healey commented on his claims of ‘new crucial evidence’ the miners could have survived the explosions and of the existence of a pipeline which could be used to recover more evidence. The complaint alleged Mr Healey’s claims were speculative and unsupported by evidence, were not challenged by the host and caused emotional harm to the victims’ families. The Authority acknowledged the sensitivity of the matters discussed, which also carried a high degree of public interest. It found the broadcast clearly presented Mr Healey’s claims as one theory and from a particular perspective. The wide range of information and coverage available over a long period of time since the original events reduced any risk of viewers being misled or significantly misinformed....

The Authority has found a statement on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive breached the accuracy standard. During the programme, the host discussed advice to Aucklanders to stay away from regions in New Zealand over the summer due to the vulnerability of communities with lower vaccination rates. The Authority found it was misleading to only mention the vaccination rate of the Bay of Plenty region when talking specifically about Ōpōtiki, which had a lower vaccination rate than the region as a whole. Where the host was contradicting advice from local authorities about the risks associated with visiting certain areas over the summer, it was important to provide listeners with the correct information. The Authority noted the host could have contextualised the comments more clearly, and the vaccination rates for Ōpōtiki were available on the same government site as the DHB rates. Upheld: Accuracy Not Upheld: Balance No Order...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News item investigating Waka Kotahi’s communications around its use of glyphosate. The complainant stated the item was unbalanced as it did not present views supporting glyphosate’s safety. The Authority found, as the broadcast was narrowly focused on one aspect of a larger debate around glyphosate use, no further balancing material relating to glyphosate safety was required. It noted the item had signalled the existence of other views and glyphosate’s safety was the subject of ongoing media coverage. Accordingly, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware it was the subject of competing points of view and were unlikely to be left misinformed by the broadcast. Not Upheld: Balance...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A documentary called Jungle Rain reported on the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and the long-term effects of this on New Zealand veterans and their families. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the documentary was alarmist and misleading. The documentary largely comprised the personal opinions and experiences of the interviewees, and contained balancing comment. Not Upheld: Accuracy, BalanceIntroduction[1] A documentary called Jungle Rain reported on the use of herbicides including Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and the long-term effects of this on New Zealand veterans and their families. The documentary was broadcast on TVNZ Heartland on 13 March 2014....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on a family who had purchased land in Papamoa only to find that the section had an actual size of 258m2, rather than the 296m2 shown on the property title and in their Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). The item found that the surveyor was responsible for the incorrect description on the title. However, the item also discussed an extract from an email sent to the purchaser by the real estate agent involved, Wayne Skinner, asking for a notation on the SPA seeking verification of the land site to be removed....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a Newshub segment that discussed the potential rise of far-right ideology in New Zealand breached the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found that the segment was balanced as it contained multiple points of view. The Authority also found that the presenter’s reference to the complainant as a ‘white supremacist’ was a statement of analysis and opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News that discussed ‘growing calls’ for New Zealand’s right to silence laws to be urgently changed. The complaint was the item failed to present the views of the many authorities who support the status quo, or include relevant historical context, and used unduly emotive language to advance an unbalanced narrative. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, within the period of current interest, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of views and information on the right to silence in cases of child abuse. It also found the broadcast approached this issue from a particular perspective and did not purport to be a balanced examination....

An episode of Marcus and Joni breached the accuracy standard as it contained inaccurate and misleading information about COVID-19 vaccines and their safety. It also promoted conspiracies and advocated for ineffective remedies. The Authority found the broadcaster had not made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the programme, particularly as the guests were not recognised experts in the subjects discussed. The balance and programme information standards did not apply. Upheld: Accuracy Not Upheld: Balance, Programme Information Orders: Daystar: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement; Section 16(4) – $500 costs to the Crown; Mainland: Section 16(4) - $500 costs to the Crown...

A segment on The Project reported on ‘hateful attacks’ occurring during Pride month, including claims of discrimination at Bethlehem College (and the Ministry of Education’s announcement it will investigate the issue) and the burning down of a Rainbow Youth centre in Tauranga. The segment included an interview with a rainbow activist who considered ‘extremist Christians’ had burnt the centre down. The presenters discussed the issue following the report and noted they hoped the investigation would bring about ‘some change in a place that really needs it. ’ The complainant considered the segment breached various standards as the cause of the fire was under investigation at the time of the broadcast, and the College was portrayed unfairly. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the relevant comments did not reach the high threshold justifying a restriction on freedom of expression....