Search Rapua

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Paakiwaha, host Willie Jackson interviewed the Head of News and Current Affairs at Māori Television about the recent resignation of senior staff, among other things. Mihingarangi Forbes and Annabelle Lee, two of the individuals referred to, complained that the interview was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority upheld aspects of the accuracy complaint, as Mr Jackson claimed Ms Forbes leaked information to media (which was also unfair) and declined an invitation to appear on the programme, which was inaccurate. The Authority also found the item was unfair to Ms Forbes, Ms Lee and another former staff member as the discussion reflected negatively on their professional ability and they were not given a timely and relevant opportunity to respond or give comment....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the Government’s upcoming review of KiwiRail’s operational and funding models. The item featured interviews with Transport Minister, Simon Bridges, NZ First leader, Winston Peters, and Prime Minister Bill English. The reporter commented that KiwiRail had been a ‘black hole’ for tax payers and ‘a giant problem for this Government’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unbalanced and unfair to KiwiRail. Given the nature of the item, which was a straightforward news report about the Government’s proposed review, viewers would not have expected to be provided with information about the historic benefits of rail or the history of KiwiRail. The Authority also found that, although the reporter’s use of language could be considered critical, the item did not result in KiwiRail being treated unfairly....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 62/95 Dated the 6th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ERNSLAW ONE LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

The Authority has upheld two complaints from Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH) about two items on ThreeNews reporting concerns about ASH, including alleged conflicts of interest and its stance on vaping. The Authority agreed the first item (26 July 2024), presented as a ‘special investigation’ into concerns about alleged links between ASH and the ‘pro-vaping’ lobby in Australia, breached the fairness, balance and accuracy standards: the reporter did not fairly inform ASH about the nature of the story or ASH’s contribution to it; ASH’s comments on the issues were not fairly presented, meaning the item was unbalanced; and, collectively, a number of statements and the presentation of ASH’s position created a misleading and unfairly negative impression of ASH....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item on the Government’s rejection of an application to officially change the town of Russell to its original name, Kororāreka. The complainants alleged an interviewee’s comment that those against the name change were ‘usually older… always white’ was racist and ageist; the accuracy of the same statement was ‘questionable’; and the item was unbalanced, biased and unfair by only including interviews with people who supported the name change....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on bullying incident at Ruawai College, told from the perspective of the victim’s mother – victim’s mother expressed frustration at the school because she was not informed of the incident until a couple of days after it occurred – contained repeated footage of the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not create an unfairly negative impression of the school and staff members – school was provided with fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and the Principal adequately presented the school’s position – item did not create an unfair impression about the timing or duration of the incident – reference to letter was not unfair – footage of police was due to an oversight – school and staff members treated fairly and overall…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-040 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT H of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO LIBERTY NETWORK J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 124/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE PAVAN FAMILY of Johnsonville Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering animal welfare in rodeos. David Wratt complained that the item, which covered loss of animal life in rodeos, should focus on the deaths of babies as human life is more valuable than animal life. As this complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, it is not capable of being determined by a complaints procedure. The Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority.   Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency; Programme Information; Discrimination and Denigration; Balance; Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on The Project discussing whether nurses who were not vaccinated against COVID-19 should return to the workforce given staff shortages. The complainant stated the broadcast breached the offensive and disturbing content standard, as well as other standards, as it encouraged division in Aotearoa New Zealand and the presenters’ comments were ‘uncalled for and unfair’. The Authority found the comments reflected the presenters’ opinions and were unlikely to cause widespread disproportionate offence or distress or otherwise undermine widely shared community standards. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging R&R breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness standards. The programme discussed Aotearoa New Zealand’s colonial history. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preferences regarding matters of editorial discretion. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News reported on three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges, and showed images of two lists of names, in which the complainants' names featured. The Authority declined to uphold complaints that by showing their names during a discussion about the accused sex offenders, the item breached the complainants' privacy. Their position as Parliamentary Service employees was not private, the inclusion of the complainants' names was peripheral to the item, and there was no suggestion that the complainants were the accused sex offenders, as the three men who were convicted or accused of sexual offence charges were explicitly identified by both their names and their images....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Insight: "Learning the Hard Way" – documentary about privately-run tertiary courses – segment about the film industry included references to The Film School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – complaint more appropriately assessed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – fact alleged to be inaccurate was expression of opinion to which standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item about students getting “duped” by substandard courses – only institution identified was The Film School – implied The Film School was one of these substandard courses – no evidence to suggest that it was substandard – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that a group of Australian teenage boys had filmed their attack of a teenage girl and were circulating the footage on DVD – showed some images of the boys’ attack – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, the maintenance of law and order, unfair, and in breach of children’s interests and the violence standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Standard 10 Standard 2 (Law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to teenage girl or homeless man – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to violent content – broadcaster did not consider the interests of children – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Question of Justice – documentary examining the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members – included police video, photographs of the crime scene, and re-enactments of the murders – allegedly unfair and in breach of the violence standardFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – programme explored all different perspectives – not unfair to David Bain – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – murder scenes not gratuitous – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A Question of Justice, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 12 May 2005, examined the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members. The programme included police video and photographs of the crime scene, plus re-enactments of the murders and other scenes....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

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...