Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

ComplaintSunday – Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) – results of Women’s Health Initiative reported (WHI) – complainant participated in item as representative of WISDOM – item included minimal scientific facts – potentially frightening – confusing – unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – purpose of item to pose questions about use of HRT – no uphold Standard 5 – while further information would have been useful, material presented not inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – complainant’s views advanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The potential health risks of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) were examined during an item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 August 2002....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Work and Income computer error leading to disclosure of information about some Work and Income clients, and ramifications for beneficiaries – allegedly sensationalist, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – Ministry’s position not adequately presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained many inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Ministry and its chief executive – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast {1} An item on One News, broadcast on TV One on 27 November 2003, reported on a computer error made by Work and Income, a division of the Ministry of Social Development, which had caused some information about some Work and Income clients to be sent to other clients....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Celebrity Treasure Island – question posed to contestant concerning “famous lesbian” – complainant alleged use of word in this context was breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsDeclined to determine – section 11(a) Broadcasting Act 1989 – isolated use of word “lesbian” does not raise issue of broadcasting standards – complaint trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Celebrity Treasure Island is a show in which New Zealand celebrities are “castaways” on a tropical island and vie for prizes for their nominated charities. [2] In an episode screened on 8 August 2004 at 7:30 pm, one of the contests was a quiz based around a “fishy” theme....

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion about New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup – caller suggested host was overly critical of the team – host’s response – abusive – unfair – sexist FindingsPrinciple 1 – subsumed Principle 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7, Guideline 7a – threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup was discussed on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 15 March 2003 hosted by Doug Golightly. One woman caller suggested to the host that he was overly critical of the team. The host advised the caller to return to domestic duties....

ComplaintHolmes – Prostitution Reform Bill – interview with Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP who abstained from voting – challenged on decision to abstain – blamed for passage of Bill – held up to ridicule and contempt – unfairFindingsStandard 4 – MP given right to reply to criticism – no uphold Standard 6 – as with Standard 4 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Prostitution Reform Bill was passed in Parliament by one vote on 25 June 2003. In an item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on Thursday 26 June, comment was made that the Bill would not have been passed had Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP not abstained. Mr Choudhary was interviewed regarding his abstention....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Father Ted – alleged crude humour – alleged disgraceful portrayal of Christian leadersFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – Guideline 6g – Father Ted does not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Roman Catholic priests – legitimate work of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Father Ted is a long running British comedy series. A repeat of episodes from the second series screened on TV One on Saturday evenings in November 2003 at 7. 30pm. Television New Zealand Ltd described Father Ted as a series which “makes fun of human foibles through the adventures of a small group of Roman Catholic priests assigned to a remote, fictional island off the coast of Ireland. ” The complainant watched the episodes broadcast on 22 and 29 November....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Checkpoint – report stated that Queenstown may face an energy crisis in the future – the words electricity, energy and power were used interchangeably – allegedly in breach of balance, fairness, accuracy and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 6 (accuracy) – item was not deceptive – listeners would not have been misled – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – standard did not apply because the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard did not apply – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that two episodes of The Box Seat breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Pay TV Code of Broadcasting Standards. The Authority found that the segments about blood spinning in harness racing covered a controversial issue of public importance but failed to include balancing views on the issue being discussed or indicate that the programmes were presented from a specific perspective. The Authority also found that, although the broadcasts did not contain any specific factual inaccuracies, the omission of alternative perspectives and information on the safety and propriety of blood spinning meant that the broadcast was misleading as a whole. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard. The Authority considered the publication of this decision sufficient to censure the breach of standards by the broadcaster and made no orders. Upheld: Balance, Accuracy. Not upheld: Fairness. No orders...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Nine to Noon host interviewed Carmel Fisher, the founder and managing director of Fisher Funds Management Ltd, about her background and attitudes to business. At the end of the interview, she asked her about recent court action over a family will. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that a comment made by Ms Fisher about her role in the proceedings was inaccurate. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the programme was unfair. The Authority did not make any order. Upheld by Majority: AccuracyNot Upheld: FairnessNo OrderIntroduction[1] On 14 March 2013 on Radio New Zealand National Nine to Noon, the host interviewed Carmel Fisher. Ms Fisher is the founder and managing director of Fisher Funds Management Ltd....

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview between Magic Talk host Ryan Bridges and World Health Organisation Special Envoy Dr David Nabarro. The complainant argued the interview contained inaccurate information about Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 and mask wearing, and inaccurately suggested Dr Nabarro advocated New Zealand adopt Sweden’s approach. The Authority found the relevant statements were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. It also concluded they were not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context of the interview. The standards of good taste and decency, balance and fairness either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Saturday Morning featured an interview with a filmmaker about his recent documentary Going Clear about the Church of Scientology. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced, unfair and biased against the Church. The focus of the interview was the filmmaker's perspective and his experience making the film; it did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required a balancing viewpoint to be presented. The nature of the programme was such that the broadcaster was not required in the interests of fairness to inform the Church prior to broadcast or invite its comment in response....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-011:Sugrue and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-011 PDF551. 41 KB...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Q+A with Jack Tame with recently-appointed Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, covering a wide range of topics. One complaint alleged Tame was rude and disrespectful in his interviewing style and showed ‘complete disregard for the position of the country's Prime Minister’. The other complaint alleged comments made by Tame about former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s strengths particularly in the foreign policy sphere (including that she appeared on the cover of Vogue and had ‘soft power’) amounted to ‘misogyny’ by suggesting this was due to her looks, and reflected ‘bigoted views towards women’. The Authority found Tame’s interview style and questioning did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny or challenge that could reasonably be expected in an interview with the Prime Minister on issues of high public importance....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an episode of Sunday breached the complainant’s privacy, and was unfair to the complainant, by broadcasting an image taken on the complainant’s property. The Authority found the complainant was not identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard, and was not ‘referred to’ in the broadcast for the purposes of the fairness standard. Not Upheld: Privacy, Fairness...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The documentary Swipe with Caution investigated the use of online dating apps, including interviews with relevant experts and dating app users, as well as detailing specific case studies. One of those case studies involved the complainant, who was convicted of sexual violation and assault after meeting with Ms X through a dating app. Ms X, through an actor, retold her story of the night. The complainant considered the broadcast was inaccurate and portrayed him unfairly. He argued Ms X’s recollections were presented as matters of proven fact but were inconsistent with the agreed facts identified in the Court’s sentencing decision. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the particular segment had high public value, as it involved a survivor telling her story, and was otherwise materially accurate....

The Authority has declined to determine aspects, and not upheld the remainder of a complaint concerning a talkback call regarding vaccine mandates. The complainant had contacted the station and spoke about her son’s issues re-enrolling at university due to his COVID-19 vaccination status. The complainant alleged the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards as the host did not accept the complainant’s statements concerning the COVID-19 vaccine and related mandates, and prematurely ended the call with the complainant. The Authority declined to determine the complaint under the balance and accuracy standards as the complainant’s concerns have been recently determined in other decisions. The Authority did not uphold the fairness complaint, finding the complainant was not treated unfairly and in any case it was an editorial choice open to the broadcaster to end the call....