Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In its Morning Report programme RNZ replaced the Pacific and Te Manu Korihi bulletins with ‘feature or lead stories’, including those with a Māori focus. The Authority declined to determine a complaint about this scheduling change, finding it raised matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In its Morning Report programme, RNZ replaced the Pacific and Te Manu Korihi bulletins with ‘feature or lead stories’, including those with a Māori focus. [2] John Malcolm complained that this change ‘discriminate[d] against those of us in provincial [New Zealand] who need to be abreast of Māori and rural issues’, because rural New Zealanders listen to the radio at a much earlier time of day and will not necessarily be able to listen to the full Morning Report programme....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair and denigratoryFindingsPreliminary findings – Authority applied TVNZ v VoTE approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Authority must consider whether finding a breach of standards would impose unreasonable limitation on free speech Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors favour broadcaster – public interest does not require finding a breach of standards simply because broadcasts lampooned Catholicism – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold in light of protection given to satire in 6(g)(iii) – threshold one of vitriol or hate speech – fact that offence caused of itself insufficient to find breach of standard – programmes not realistic as complainant alleged – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – satirical programmes would only be unfair in…...

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Probation Services Manager – conduct of the interviewer – biased – unfair Findings Standards 4 and 6 – live interview – not unbalanced – interviewee presented viewpoint – dealt with fairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with the Manager of the Probation Service was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 13 February 2003. The interview centred around the release of a report by the Probation Service regarding its management of an offender while on parole. [2] John Blackaby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and that the interviewee had been dealt with unfairly, because of the "bully-boy" conduct of the presenter....

ComplaintNine to Noon – Ministry of Health official described as Deputy-Director of Clinical Services and “Disinformation” – unfair – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4 and Principle 5 – subsumed under Principle 6 Principle 6 – use of word “disinformation” unfair to Ministry and Deputy Director-General – upheld OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Dr Colin Feek, the Ministry of Health’s Deputy Director-General of Clinical Services, was interviewed on Nine to Noon, on National Radio on 10 June 2003 about an audit on the way hospitals treated patients with heart problems. At the conclusion of the interview, he was described as the Deputy Director-General of Clinical Services “and Disinformation”. [2] The Ministry of Health complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was inaccurate, unbalanced, and unfair to both the Ministry and Dr Feek....

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion of South Africa & New Zealand one day cricket match – callers’ questions about match-fixing and bonus point – host terminated one call apparently from an Asian with reference to match-fixing in the sub-continent – another call terminated with sarcasm – unfair – racist FindingsPrinciple 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7 – opinion not racial slur – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The result of the previous evening’s one day cricket match between New Zealand and South Africa was one of the topics on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 2 February 2002 hosted by Doug Golightly. One caller questioned whether the result was fixed, and another asked whether South Africa had earned a bonus point....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-024:New Zealand Aids Foundation and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1991-024 PDF711. 93 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning a Sunday investigation report looking into issues with emergency housing in Rotorua, and a follow-up item on 1 News. The majority of the Sunday broadcast focused on allegations against the largest contracted emergency housing provider in Rotorua, Visions of a Helping Hand (Visions), and its contracted security company Tigers Express Security Ltd – both led by CEO/Director Tiny Deane. Visions complained the broadcast was unbalanced, misleading, and unfair to Visions, Tigers Express Security and Deane. Noting the very high public interest and value in the story overall, the Authority found most of Visions’ concerns with the broadcast could have been addressed had it provided a substantive response to the reporter on the issues raised – who had made numerous attempts over more than a month to obtain comment from Visions and Deane....

Summary The dissatisfactions expressed by a number of students at the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch were examined in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. A follow-up item was broadcast on Holmes on TV One between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 12 April 1999. The Managing Director of the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the April item was unfair and unbalanced, and inaccurate in a number of respects. TVNZ considered that one aspect of the item was unfair, and in breach of the standards, as Ms Hudson was not advised that a telephone conversation between herself and a student, contained in the broadcast, was being recorded. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint relating to the alleged inaccuracies or lack of balance....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – investigated one couple’s practice of grazing cattle along the banks of the Pahaoa River in the Wairarapa – interviewed concerned neighbour, environmental scientist, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and spokesman for Federated Farmers – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – story focused on one couple – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the Riddells were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the story – reporter’s approach unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – legal costs to the complainant $1,670 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 4 February 2009, the host introduced a story, saying: Let’s. . ....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the fairness standard during an episode of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive was insufficient. The complaint related to an interview with a 16-year-old climate activist about the Schools Strike for Climate movement, and the group’s key demands. During the interview, the interviewee admitted she had recently travelled to Fiji, despite one of the group’s demands being a ban on ‘unnecessary air travel’. This resulted in the host hysterically laughing at, and teasing the interviewee for over a minute. The broadcaster conceded in light of the interviewee’s age and potential vulnerability, the segment breached the fairness standard. The Authority determined it too would have found a breach of the fairness standard, but in the circumstances considered the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to address the breach....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on an instance of alleged illegal fishing in a marine reserve. The introduction stated, ‘A dive company owner has described [the fishing] as a “blatant and reckless raiding party”. Video posted on social media appears to show the men at the Poor Knights Islands [which has] been protected for decades…’ Clips of the video were shown in the item, with the individuals’ faces blurred. The complaint was that the story was ‘ill informed’ and had caused ‘a lot of harm’ to the individuals involved and their families, including death threats....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 29/94 Decision No: 30/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR PAUL SMEDLEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on 7 Days was unfair to a singer who performed the New Zealand national anthem ahead of an All Blacks game in San Diego. The complainants said the broadcast was unfair to the performer and unbalanced, noting she was accused of ‘butchering’ the anthem and called ‘Dunedin’s most well-known murderer’. The Authority found the programme was not unfair, noting: viewers were unlikely to interpret the programme as suggesting the performer was an actual murderer or criminal; having chosen to perform at such an event, she could reasonably expect comment on her performance; viewers would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of the performer; comments were directed at the performance rather than the performer personally; and that comedy and satire are valuable forms of expression. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-114 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROAD TRANSPORT FORUM NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryA radio station announcer, claiming he was doing a survey on STDs, telephoned a woman and asked a number of personal and intimate questions. The call was broadcast live on The Edge on 30 November 1998 at about 4. 00pm. J, the woman who received the call, had identified herself using her first name and employer’s name. She complained to the station that the call was a serious invasion of her privacy as she was never told that the caller was from a radio station, or that it was being broadcast live. J said the comments ranged from being personal to obscene, and cited some examples. When the matter was referred to the station initially, J received an apology both from the station manager and the announcer....