Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a discussion between the hosts of AM and an interview with Prime Minister Chris Hipkins breached multiple standards for including statements from the hosts questioning the usefulness and purpose of Government inquiries into various sectors. The Authority found the balance and fairness standards were not breached as the interview with Hipkins provided an alternative viewpoint, and allowed Hipkins to comment on the Government’s reasoning for the inquiry. The accuracy standard did not apply, as the comments were analysis, commentary and opinion, and the discrimination and denigration, and offensive and disturbing content standards either were not breached or did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an item on 1News reporting on cuts to the public sector. The complainant considered the broadcast’s claim that public sector spending cuts were to help pay for the government’s tax cuts was inaccurate, unbalanced and was unfair to Minister of Finance Nicola Willis, as it fully attributed public sector funding reductions to paying for tax cuts. The Authority found no breach of the accuracy standard, noting the broadcast did not fully attribute public sector funding reductions to paying for tax cuts. It further found in a news story about the impact of the cuts, the broadcaster was not required to include reference to other reasons for better management of government funds, as well as other financial measures that would also help pay for tax cuts, as the complainant had submitted....

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....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item showed autopsy photographs of child who had been beaten to death – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness, programme classification, children’s interests, and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased individuals – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard does not apply to deceased individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – standard does not apply to unclassified news programmes – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently mindful of the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised care and discretion in broadcasting the photographs – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryA no-smacking programme developed by the Children Young Persons and their Families Service was the subject of an item on One Network News broadcast on 24 September 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. It included file footage showing a Pacific Island woman beating a young boy. Ms Elliott complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the segment showing the woman beating the child was entirely at variance with the rest of the item and asked whether its purpose was to reinforce a racist stereotype about Pacific Island people and violence. In her view, the woman and the Pacific Island community were owed an apology. TVNZ responded that because smacking was a common form of discipline in the Pacific Island community, some resistance to the CYPFS campaign was expected from that quarter. In its view, the sequence was not irrelevant in that context....

Summary The manager of the Chatham Islands Millennium Project was interviewed by Kim Hill on the programme Nine to Noon broadcast on National Radio on 28 January 1999 at 9. 45am. At the conclusion of the interview, he was asked to explain whether his previous conviction for fraud had been an impediment in this role. Mr P F Smith, Mayor of the Chatham Islands Council, complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the interviewer had acted unprofessionally in raising that issue. The Council sought a ruling from the Authority to censure the broadcaster, he wrote. In its response, RNZ argued that as a significant amount of public money had been granted to the Chatham Islands Millennium Project, it was considered reasonable to raise the matter of the Project Manager’s background....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – broadcast of anonymous interviewee’s allegations that the Hon David Benson-Pope was guilty of bullying students at Bayfield High School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – broadcasting allegations by anonymous interviewee unfair – RNZ did not verify interviewee’s credibility to a high standard before granting anonymity – did not undertake sufficient independent investigations into interviewee’s story – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue whether Mr Benson-Pope bullied students during his time as a teacher – RNZ made reasonable efforts to present significant perspectives within period of current interest – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one aspect subsumed under Principle 5 – decline to determine whether allegations were accurate – describing a caning as a “beating” not inaccurate – not upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $5,000…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast- host read out viewer feedback that contained joke referring to "Jesus Christ" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and children's interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – "Jesus Christ" used to covey exclamation of light-hearted surprise – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not intended to encourage denigration of Christian people – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children's interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast was broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 23 March 2010. During the viewer feedback segment at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Asia Down Under and One News – One News item replayed significant footage screened on Asia Down Under earlier in the morning – programmes addressed issue of need for regulation of immigration consultants – profiled situation of Korean family, the Yangs, who were seeking permanent residency in New Zealand – outlined Yangs’ dealings with immigration consultancy firm Wasan International Co Ltd and its director Edward Kang – discussed high fees charged and lack of success in their applications to date – Asia Down Under team arrived unannounced at Wasan Ltd’s offices and requested interview with Mr Kang – used comments on wider issue from Immigration Minister Paul Swain – used comments from representative of New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment – Asia Down Under reported police and NZAMI investigations of Wasan Ltd – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance)…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on Christchurch homeowners living in the government’s red zone with regard to their replacement insurance policies – interviewed Tower Insurance customer who had been advised that his replacement insurance would cover the cost of repairing his damaged house but not its full replacement value – visited Tower’s head office – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Campbell Live exhausted all legitimate methods to obtain comment from Tower – Mr Campbell’s approach polite and non-confrontational – door-stepping used as a means of obtaining information and constructive comment – not unfair to Tower or the receptionist – reference to email a fair summary of its contents – overall Tower treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Choppers – rescue series – intrusion into grief – breach of privacy – complainant said consent to broadcast withheld FindingsPrivacy – conflict as to whether consent given – decline to determine Standard 5 – item not news, current affairs or documentary – no uphold Standard 6 – majority – footage indistinct and fleeting – similar to that which would be used in news item – informational content – no uphold – minority – complainant identifiable and clearly in shock – friend obscured – unfair This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Choppers followed the activities of a helicopter rescue service. The rescue of a young woman who had fallen down a cliff was shown in the episode broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV2 on 8 August 2002. [2] Christine Diamond, the woman rescued, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA 990 – Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon – caller allegedly referred to the complainant and his wife – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 3 (privacy), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – recording of broadcast in Hindi and translation incomplete – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] At approximately 7. 30pm on APNA 990 on 26 August 2010, the radio host spoke to a caller during a Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon. The caller commented to the effect that his neighbours had “run away”. Complaint[2] Moh Lateef made a formal complaint to APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the caller was referring to him and his wife, as they lived on the same street as the caller....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB Christchurch – “Stick of the Week” awards – host nominated and named both the parents of and a pre-schooler who had been involved in altercation with Mayor – child allegedly exposed to ridicule and humiliation – privacy allegedly breached FindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – facts disclosed already in public domain – not upheld Principle 6 (fairness) – child object of sympathy, not ridicule – not upheld Principle 7 (denigration) – item did not deal with specified section of community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “Stick of the Week”, a negative albeit light-hearted award, is a long-running segment of the Friday morning show on Newstalk ZB in Christchurch....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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…...

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…...

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