Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Prime Minister John Key had referred “tea tapes” matter to the police – he commented that “The good thing is we’ve lowered the crime rate by seven percent right across the country so they do have a little bit of spare time” – reporter said that “John Key may face criticism on a couple of fronts, firstly, for saying that police have too much time on their hands” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers heard Mr Key’s original comment so they would not have been misled – viewers would have understood the item was broadcast in a robust political environment in the lead-up to the election – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – politicians are aware of robust political arena and should expect to have their views commented…...

ComplaintHolmes – canal development in Whitianga – ministerial order to start again the consents process – angry reaction among residents – no comment from Minister – unbalanced FindingsStandard G6 – balance achieved throughout item – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The angry reaction in Whitianga to the Conversation Minister’s order to consider again aspects of the consents process for the proposed canal development in the town, was covered in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 16 May 2001. Dorothy Stafford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the purpose of the item was to condemn the delay, it had suggested that the project had been terminated and had given only cursory treatment of the legal reasons that required the Minister to take action. Accordingly, she wrote, the item was unbalanced....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two hosts on George FM Breakfast asked listeners to send in the names and profiles of female users of Instagram described as ‘do-nothing bitches’. The names of two women, A and B, were submitted. The hosts went on to comment extensively on A’s profile, making inappropriate and disparaging comments about her, and also contacted A and interviewed her on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks having found breaches of the fairness and good taste and decency standards was insufficient, and also found that the broadcast breached the privacy of both women....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on a proposal by PHARMAC to decline funding for a drug needed to treat a rare blood disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and portrayed PHARMAC as ‘irresponsible and heartless’. The item was transparently an advocacy piece presented from the perspective of people who opposed PHARMAC’s proposal, in particular a New Zealand man suffering from the disorder who desperately needed the drug. The item emphasised that the high cost of the drug was the main reason behind PHARMAC’s proposal, and it contained a fair summary of a statement provided by PHARMAC to the programme....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-035:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-035 PDF313. 12 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that Radio New Zealand's Sunday Morning coverage of 'Dirty Politics issues', was unbalanced, irresponsible and unfair. The broadcast covered a range of topics including Dirty Politics, and as the book was one of the political 'hot topics' in the lead-up to the 2014 general election and widely reported on, listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Stephen Lace complained that Radio New Zealand's Sunday Morning programme on 24 August 2014, and specifically the coverage of 'Dirty Politics issues', was unbalanced, irresponsible and unfair. He referred to a 'left wing bias' and a lack of serious analysis and discussion of proposed policy....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-010:Odinot and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-010 PDF426. 74 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live marked the fourth anniversary of the first Canterbury earthquake with a live broadcast from a Christchurch school hall where an audience of local residents with unresolved insurance claims participated in the programme. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards because the programme did not include the insurance industry's perspective and was misleading about the industry's willingness to participate in the programme. Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy Order: Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Introduction [1] Campbell Live marked the fourth anniversary of the first Canterbury earthquake with a live broadcast from a Christchurch school hall where an audience of local residents with unsettled insurance claims participated in the programme....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged bullying and targeting vulnerable people. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme was ‘racist’ and unfair to Dead Sea Spa. The story carried high public interest, and Dead Sea Spa was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order Introduction [1] Campbell Live investigated sales techniques used by Dead Sea Spa employees at kiosks and shopping malls throughout New Zealand, including alleged ‘bullying, deception and targeting the vulnerable’. It was reported that the Israeli women staffing the kiosks were working illegally, without work permits. The item was broadcast on TV3 on 1 July 2014....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report covered a truce between Israel and Hamas during the Gaza conflict. A Palestinian rights activist and an Israeli spokesman were interviewed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced because more air time was given to the Palestinian view, and because no significant point of view was presented from an equivalent Israeli activist. There is no requirement for mathematically equal time to be given to competing perspectives on controversial issues. Sufficient efforts were made during the broadcast to showcase the Israeli, as well as the Palestinian, perspective. Further, listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of a range of views on the Gaza conflict given the extensive and ongoing coverage of this issue....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of the Larry Williams Drive Show and a political editor discussed a protest that had taken place in response to the release of the Government’s budget. The host expressed his disapproval of the protestors and made comments about how he thought they should be dealt with, for example saying fire trucks cornering them from either end of the street. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments breached standards. The host was clearly expressing his personal opinion, and the political editor countered the comments, noting people living in a democracy are entitled to protest....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Native Affairs – item discussed the findings of a 2009 Education Review Office report on a Māori immersion school called Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi – reporter made statements about operation of the school and teachers’ resignations – included footage of a previous interview with the Chair of the school’s Board of Trustees and interviews with a representative from the national body that represents Te Kura Kaupapa Māori and a past principal of the school – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item accurate in relation to the points raised by the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and the Kura’s Board given adequate opportunity to respond – item dealt…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two items about the disappearance of a six-year-old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies in either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – 5 December broadcast not unfair to mother of six-year-old boy – complainant did not specify any person in the 20 December broadcast who was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-006:Society for Promotion of Community Standards and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-006 PDF280. 39 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....