Search Rapua

Complaint under sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the Teachers Council registering people with convictions – referred to the case of a high school teacher who had been “convicted of supplying P to four students” – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 2 – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while item was ambiguous as to whether Mr Arthur supplied P to his own students, it was inaccurate to state that he supplied P to students – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to state that Mr Arthur supplied P to students – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Documentary entitled Michael Jackson's Mind looked at history of Michael Jackson's unconventional behaviour – behaviour analysed by psychiatrists and psychologists – comments sought from range of other people – programme used extracts from previous documentary Living with Michael Jackson – allegedly unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not controversial issue of public importance – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Authority unable to determine whether extracts of Martin Bashir documentary used in context – decline to determine – other comments by psychiatrist not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 30 May 2005, at 9. 30pm, TV2 broadcast a documentary entitled Michael Jackson's Mind....

Complaint Classic Hits 89. 4FM Nelson - content of Nelson’s Mainland Television described as “crap” – offensive and unacceptable Findings Principle 7 – not applicable Principle 1 – not offensive in context – not upheld Principle 5 – humorous editorial comment was not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A news report that a city (Oslo) was offering trips through the sewer system as a tourist attraction was read on Classic Hits 89. 4FM in Nelson at about 7. 25am on Thursday 11 December 2003. The announcer added that, in Nelson, Mainland TV offered “four channels of crap all the time”. [2] On behalf of Mainland Television Ltd, the Managing Director (Gary Watson) complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unacceptable....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Radio – Nine to Noon – interview with a grandmother campaigning against prescription of the drug Ritalin – grandmother not medically qualified made allegedly inaccurate statements – item allegedly unbalanced and unfair as it failed to present expert medical opinionFindings Principle 4 (balance) – personal perspective – balanced mainstream view – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – not relevant – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – mixture of fact and opinion – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Authority unable to establish number of people being prescribed Ritalin in New Zealand – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a news bulletin on RNZ Concert which reported on Māori and Pasifika honoured in the 2024 New Year Honours list. The complainant alleged that only referring to Māori and Pasifika honourees was ‘reverse racism’. In all the circumstances, the Authority found the complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that could be properly determined by its complaints process. Declined to determine (section 11(b) in all the circumstances): Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

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: 112/94 Dated the 17th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAME THEA MULDOON of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

The Authority has not upheld complaints that the action taken by Warner Bros. Discovery in response to a breach of the accuracy and fairness standards – during a Newshub Live at 6pm item on Immigration New Zealand’s decision to allow Posie Parker’s entry to New Zealand – was insufficient. The broadcaster upheld the complaints relating to a clip of Parker, which the reporter stated had been blurred because Parker was ‘using a hand signal linked to white supremacists’. The broadcaster conceded that blurring Parker’s hands was potentially misleading as it prevented audiences from making their own assessment of the footage, and potentially unfair as Parker’s intention was unclear. The broadcaster removed the video in the online version of the story and replaced it with a clip of Parker’s position on neo-Nazis, which the Authority found was sufficient and proportionate action in the circumstances....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News, reporting on the destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in the region of Kherson, Ukraine, incorrectly attributed responsibility for the incident, and shelling of the region after the incident, to Russia. The Authority noted the broadcast did not state, either expressly or implicitly, who was responsible for the dam’s destruction. Further, while the Authority acknowledged the broadcast may have implied Russia was responsible for some shelling in the Kherson region, this suggestion was not inaccurate, and the broadcast did not state Russia shelled the region after the dam’s destruction. It accordingly found no breach of the accuracy standard. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the hosts of Midweek Mediawatch concerning sexual violence during the October 7 attacks in Israel were inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair for downplaying or denying that sexual violence occurred. During an extended discussion concerning an interview on Q + A, and how the Israel-Hamas conflict is reported on generally, the hosts noted reporting of sexual violence on 7 October 2023 had been challenged by other outlets, and mentioned that the Q + A interview did not challenge these claims. The Authority found that the statements were more consistent with analysis, comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. However, it found relevant statements were, in any event, not misleading. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief, light-hearted discussion on ZM’s Bree & Clint programme about listeners’ suggestions to use methamphetamine to stay awake breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the discussion made methamphetamine appear ‘cute’, it was offensive for the hosts to discuss it on air, promoted the drug to the audience and was unfair. The Authority found the discussion was within audience expectations of the programme and station and was not likely to promote use of the drug. Though the conversation was light-hearted, the hosts specifically acknowledged the drug could ‘ruin [their] lives’. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

Warning: This decision contains coarse language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the good taste and decency standard during an episode of the programme Bhuja was insufficient. The Authority agreed that the programme breached standards, by failing to signal to viewers that a highly aggressive interview was staged, and by broadcasting offensive language. However, the Authority found the action taken by the broadcaster holding the hosts to account with regard to language used, was proportionate to the breach and any further action would unreasonably limit the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression. The Authority also found that the fairness, discrimination and denigration, violence and accuracy standards did not apply to the material broadcast. Not upheld: Good Taste and Decency (Action Taken), Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Violence, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the question ‘How can anyone trust anything that you say? ’ put to Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health, following the positive tests of two women who were released from managed isolation on compassionate grounds. Dr Bloomfield’s answers to the question (which was posed twice) were shown on-air. Viewers would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him. As a public health official he is reasonably subject to robust scrutiny, especially during a pandemic. The fairness standard was accordingly not breached and the remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – wanted offender described as “possibly Māori but pale skinned” and “possibly Māori, [with a] light complexion” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – segment did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Māori as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A segment on Police Ten 7 profiled an aggravated robbery of a bar in Christchurch. Viewers were told that it was committed by three men, two armed with guns and one armed with a crowbar. The segment included security footage of the robbery, outlined the facts of the case, and outlined ways that viewers may be able to help police identify the offenders....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A and Marae Investigates – items discussed domestic violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed controversial issue of public importance – items clearly framed as focusing on men’s violence against women – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of domestic violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber, and made unfair and derogatory comments about her duties and her personal attributes. The broadcaster upheld the complaint, and Mr Henry apologised on air a week later. The Authority considered the segment to be a serious breach of standards, but in all the circumstances found the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken) Introduction [1] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber and discussed her position and responsibilities. The presenter also read out excerpts from her job description....

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. ID1992-003:Centrepoint Community Growth Trust and TV3 Network Services Ltd - ID1992-003 PDF558. 63 KB...

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....