Search Rapua

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/94 Dated the 18th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDWARD MALCOLM and OTHERS of Nelson Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub discussed revelations that the pension of New Zealand First Leader, Rt Hon Winston Peters, had been overpaid for up to seven years. The segment featured excerpts of a phone interview with Mr Peters, details about Mr Peters’ press release and subsequent comments made by Mr Peters about the overpayments. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority did not consider that it was necessary to obtain a copy of the full phone interview transcript in order to determine whether the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair (as requested by the complainant)....

Summary An item on the Larry Williams Programme focussed on the resignation from the Alliance Party of Mr Frank Grover MP. The item included interviews with Mr Jim Anderton, the leader of the Alliance Party, and with Mr Grover. It was broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 11 June 1999, commencing at about 6. 15 pm. Both John Bryant, the Executive Director of the Christian Heritage Party, and Adam Claasen of Christchurch complained to The Radio Network Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was untruthful, unfair, deceptive and unbalanced. Mr Grover had agreed to the interview on the basis that Mr Anderton was not "on the call at the same time", they wrote, but by including Mr Anderton in the interview, the host had breached that agreement....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item discussing copyright in photos – featured a woman who believed a photo she took had been posted on the internet as belonging to someone else – stated that American photographer claimed to have taken the photo – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was misleading in conveying that the woman owned the photo and that Mr Bush had “stolen” it and was claiming it as his own – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair in implying that the complainant did not own the photo – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant sufficiently identifiable from website details – but website and photo in the public domain – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld OrdersSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $1,000 This…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six taxi companies in Auckland – noted that driver of Green Cab had looked down at something six times during the journey – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster was entitled to edit footage – unclear what the driver was looking at – Target legitimately commented that he demonstrated lapses in concentration and took his eyes off the road – programme broadcast fair reflection of Green Cabs’ response – not unfair – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – concerns better dealt with under fairness – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – episode devoted to controversy about Meningococcal B vaccine and immunisation campaign – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – a range of significant views advanced about a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies and not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – taking into account the format of programme, panel member Ron Law treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The controversy about the Meningococcal B vaccine and the current immunisation campaign was dealt with during an entire episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 July 2005. The item included interviews undertaken in Norway at the laboratory that developed the vaccine on which the New Zealand vaccine was based....

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Prime News item reported on the trial of a former Nazi guard at Auschwitz and referred to the camp as a ‘Polish camp’. The complainant alleged this statement was inaccurate because it was not a ‘Polish camp’, but was rather a Nazi camp located in Poland. The Authority recognised that the labelling of concentration camps as part of the Nazi regime remains a sensitive issue and one of historical importance, which broadcasters should be mindful of when choosing the language to be used. Nevertheless, in the context of the item the Authority did not consider that viewers would have been misled. Not Upheld: Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Prime News reported on the trial of a former Nazi guard as follows: A former Auschwitz guard has gone on trial in Germany for 170,000 counts of accessory to murder. ....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of I Am Innocent focused on the story of Y, a science teacher, who was accused and charged with indecently assaulting a female student (‘X’) in 2012. The charges against Y were withdrawn around August-September 2013. The episode featured interviews with Y and others, all of whom spoke supportively about him. Ms Johnson complained that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards, including that comments made during the programme about X and her mother resulted in their unfair treatment. The Authority upheld this aspect of Ms Johnson’s complaint, finding that the programme created a negative impression of X and her mother....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Morning Report with Sue Grey, lawyer for the parents of a baby whose urgent heart surgery had been delayed due to the parents’ concerns regarding blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19. The essence of the complaints was that the host did not listen to Grey, constantly interrupted her, did not allow her to answer the questions, and pushed his personal views. The Authority found the interview did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny that could reasonably be expected in an interview with Grey on this subject, noting in particular that Grey was making claims contrary to public health advice, and was able to put forward key points in the course of the eight-minute interview. Therefore the broadcast overall did not result in any unfairness to Grey....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-075 Decision No: 1997-076 Decision No: 1997-077 Decision No: 1997-078 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by GEOFFREY PRENTICE of Auckland and GERARD ROBERTS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-084 Dated the 30th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK PULLAR of Auckland TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Real Crime: Broken Promises, Broken Brides – investigated the mistreatment of foreign brides in New Zealand – profiled a Malaysian woman who died of a methadone overdose – interviewed her husband who was convicted of her manslaughter – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme did not create a misleading impression that the complainant intended to murder his wife – reporter outlined the facts of the case and clearly stated the complainant was convicted of manslaughter – complainant’s perspective was included in the programme – programme was accurate and would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant was provided with a sufficient opportunity to give his perspective in two interviews – interviews were not unfairly edited – overall complainant was treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about the experience of a man who purchased the “Hire A Hubby” franchise for the suburb of Greenlane in Auckland – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate or misleading – Target mentioned that there had been a settlement – the settlement was not the focus of the item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness arguments relied on the programme being misleading – FBL was treated fairly and given a fair opportunity to comment – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 29 April 2008, covered the story of Colin Hinds and his experience as a Hire A Hubby franchisee....