Search Rapua

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on Insight that investigated the history and current state of far-right, alt-right and nationalist ideologies breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found the broadcast was balanced as it contained a range of significant perspectives. The Authority also found people who hold these ideologies do not amount to an ‘organisation’ for the purposes of the fairness standard and therefore that the fairness standard does not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News covering police brutality in the United States of America and comments made by its President Donald Trump about deceased victim of police brutality, George Floyd. The item reported Mr Trump was ‘copping more flack’ for his comments and that, ‘celebrating better than expected employment numbers, he bizarrely called it a great day for George Floyd’. To the extent the broadcast may be considered inaccurate or misleading for suggesting an incorrect interpretation of Mr Trump’s comments, the Authority found it was not material. The Authority also considered Mr Trump is a high profile politician and public figure and could have reasonably expected to be subject to such scrutiny. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

SummaryThe proposed regulation of electricity lines companies was the subject of a news item screened between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 13 July 1999 on 3 News. After an analysis of both the government and opposition viewpoints, the reporter concluded that the government’s attempt to stop power price hikes was proving unsuccessful. On 6 August a 3 News report focused on tax policies. The political editor stated that the Treasurer had trivialised the issues and got his figures wrong when he had briefed the press. She reported that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had "demolished" the Treasurer’s figures. The weekly political round-up during 3 News on 13 August 1999 dealt with the defence and management seminar, INCIS, National’s 5-step plan linking education, business and research, and Labour’s standing in the polls....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – follow-up to TV3 “special investigation” Let Us Spray– said that Ministry of Health had “finally admitted it tests positive for political contamination” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Ministry of Health had “finally admitted it tests positive for political contamination” – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Ministry of Health – not unfair to peer reviewer of study or to ESR – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 1989Inside New Zealand: Leaving the Exclusive Brethren – experiences of five people who had left the Exclusive Brethren – allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – no offensive intrusion – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the Exclusive Brethren – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A documentary entitled Inside New Zealand: Leaving the Exclusive Brethren was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 18 August 2005. The programme followed the experiences of five people who had left the Exclusive Brethren....

Complaint Flipside – item looking into cheating at Universities – comment that Asian learning cultures rewarded copying while punished in New Zealand – inaccurate – denigrated Asian culture Findings Standard 5 – comments a mixture of facts and opinion – no inaccurate facts Standard 6 – genuine opinion – not unfair This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Cheating among students at universities was considered in a segment of Flipside broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm on Tuesday 1 October 2002. Dr David Brook, Deputy Vice Chancellor at the Auckland University of Technology, was one of the people interviewed. [2] Daphne Wong complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that Dr Brook’s comment that copying was rewarded in Asian cultures but punished in New Zealand, was untrue and denigrated an entire culture....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with man about unproven sexual abuse when a child in the Order of St John of God – man paid $30,000 by Order on condition of confidentiality – unbalanced – unfair to Order FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – item made clear that the man’s views had been contested by Brother and there was no court case – Church spokesperson given reasonable opportunity to challenge his account – did not do so – man’s credibility left to viewer to assess – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Patrick" was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 19 June 2002....

Complaint"Trial and Error" – 20/20 – David Bain murder trial – Milton Weir defamation action against Joe Karam – Weir’s admission that Bain jury was misled – inadvertent mistake – not first time admitted – unfair, unbalanced, impartial to present otherwise FindingsStandards G4 and G6 – impression given that first time mistake admitted – no evidence that mistake anything other then genuine – implication that Mr Weir might have intentionally misled jury – dramatic choice of language – interview with Assistant Commissioner of Police and reference to Police Complaints Authority’s report inadequate to provide balance/undo suggestion that mistake might have been intentional – uphold Standards G4 and G6 – aspects of complaint regarding evidential significance of mistake not a matter for the Broadcasting Standards Authority – decline to determine Standard G16 – standard concerned with the general viewing public – no uphold Standard G20 – reasonable efforts made to include Mr Weir in…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on woman who sought a refund for baby items purchased from the complainant’s business – reporter approached complainant for an interview at her place of business – footage and audio recording of the conversation was broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no previous attempts were made to obtain comment before door-stepping the owners at their place of business – covert filming and recording of conversation meant that the owners were not properly informed of the nature of their participation as required by guideline 6c – owners specifically stated that they did not want to be filmed or recorded – tone of programme was negative towards owners and their position was not adequately presented – owners treated unfairly – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not even-handed as required by…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989High Country Rescue – profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died – made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – footage of the complainant was not broadcast and so no disclosure of information obtained through an intrusion with the complainant’s interest in seclusion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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: 68/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-138 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G RAWSON of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – items reported that the Ministry of Social Development had hired a “prominent drag queen to motivate staff” – reported that the National Party believed taxpayers’ money was being wasted – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – items implied MSD had hired a drag artist as a motivational speaker – MSD had really hired Edward Cowley as a professional facilitator – misleading and inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to MSD and to Mr Cowley – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into Standards 5 and 6 Order Section 16(4) – payment of $2500 costs to the Crown 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....