Search Rapua

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 1. Holmes – 18 and 19 November 2003 – complainant director of Network Visas NZ Ltd – in dispute with 13 Romanian students – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – not company’s registered office – complainant given inadequate opportunity to respond – a number of factual inaccuracies – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair 2. Holmes – 18 November 2003 – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – after broadcast, complainant visited by landlord – complainant’s wife who operates beauty business from the address felt intimidated – alleged breach of privacy 3....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

ComplaintRadio Sport – host Doug Golightly – men’s refuges derided as unnecessary for real New Zealanders – only use was for beaten partners of homosexual men – complainant’s email misread – unfair – irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 7 Guideline 7a – high threshold not reached – no uphold Principle 5 – change to email – implication that writer was homosexual – complainant not identified – on balance not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Radio Sport programme on Saturday morning 17 August 2002, hosted by Doug Golightly, included a number of references to men’s refuges. The host questioned their need for "real" New Zealanders, suggesting that only the beaten partners of homosexual men would use them. That attitude was reflected in his comments on some emails he referred to during the broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the release of the Government’s Budget that day – discussed impact of the budget on a range of New Zealanders including three “high earners” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – brief references to the incomes of three high earners did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements about the impact of the budget on three high earners were not material points of fact – viewers would have understood that the point being made was that they would have more money each week than lower earners – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – references to incomes of high earners did not result in them being treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not…...

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...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 19/95 Decision No: 20/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by KINGS COLLEGE of Auckland and its headmaster JOHN TAYLOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

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....

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 121/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS MORGAN of Kihikihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J R Morris (Acting Chairperson) L M Loates W J Fraser...

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Pacific Coast FM – interview with Coromandel resident Bill Muir discussing local politics in Whitianga – during the item Mr Muir made a number of critical statements alleging serious misconduct by members of the local district council and community board – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy, fairness and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 5 (fairness) – item named people who were accused of unsubstantiated illegal activity – host did not challenge Mr Muir when he made the allegations – Mr Muir’s statements went beyond acceptable comment on political activity – unfair – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other significant perspectives – upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – not within the Authority’s jurisdiction to determine allegations of criminal behaviour – decline to determine under section…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-24 PDF82. 96 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Complaint During a Close Up item about the "naming and shaming" of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated but she was "unmasked" and named later in the item. David and Heather Green objected to the woman's treatment. They said the item had imposed an extra penalty over and above that imposed in the courtroom, and was unfair....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – only part of letter from complainant to talkback host read on air – devious and unfair FindingsPrinciple 4 and guideline a – complainant’s views advanced – no uphold Principle 5 and guideline b – editing did not involve distortion – no uphold Principle 6 and guideline a – no deceptive practice used – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During a discussion of the terrorist attack in New York City on 11 September 2001, a host of the talkback station, Radio Pacific, was said to have stated on a number of occasions that Osama bin Laden had nuclear weapons and that New Zealand was a likely target. Mark Madigan wrote to the host disputing this claim. He provided sources for his view that, even if bin Laden had nuclear weapons, he would not be able to use them....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 102/95 Decision No: 103/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEDIAWOMEN of Wellington and LINDA McDOUGALL of London Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview between host Kim Hill and John Tamihere, Chief Executive of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report breached broadcasting standards. It found the interview did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, noting that the robust nature of the interview was in line with audience expectations of RNZ and Hill. It also found the balance standard was not breached on the basis that Tamihere was given sufficient time to express his views and, given other media coverage, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other perspectives regarding how to best increase Māori vaccination rates. It further found that Tamihere was not treated unfairly during the interview. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance and Fairness...