Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – hosts commented that immigrant doctors "can't be as good as our doctors", "they would stay overseas if there's opportunity to make more money overseas" and that immigrant doctors require training which makes the job of locally-trained doctors "more challenging" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were hosts' personal opinions – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – comments made during brief exchange between co-hosts – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overseas-trained doctors an occupational group and not individual or organisation to which standard applies – Mr Powell treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcaster did not…...

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...

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

The Authority has not upheld complaints an item on Sunday breached the accuracy, balance, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast featured a 30 minute report on Aotearoa New Zealand’s medical staffing shortages, and explored whether this issue could be alleviated by the migration of medical staff from the USA, particularly those dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v Wade. The complainants considered the broadcast unbalanced, favouring a ‘pro-choice’ perspective....

The Authority has declined to determine six complaints about various TVNZ broadcasts, under several standards, as the concerns related to the complainant’s personal preferences on what should be broadcast, issues raised had recently been dealt with and did not warrant further determination and/or the standards raised did not relate to the relevant complaint. Two complaints were also trivial. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial; and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Offensive and Disturbing Content...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of The Feed discussing issues faced by rainbow communities breached multiple standards. The complaint alleged the programme, which was aimed at children, was one-sided in favour of the ‘trans lifestyle’ and did not include balancing content about the ‘heterosexual lifestyle’, and accordingly amounted to illegal gender reassignment therapy or grooming. The Authority found the programme content carried high value and public interest by raising and exploring issues and perspectives in relation to rainbow communities, and through promoting diversity and inclusion. It was satisfied the programme would not cause widespread offence or adversely affect children. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on the verdict of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in the United States breached broadcasting standards. The complainant considered the item inaccurate and unbalanced as it allegedly misrepresented events around the trial including the origins of the protest, the presiding Judge, and the public’s response to the verdict. The Authority considered the broadcast was materially accurate given its focus on the verdict from the trial. Any inaccuracies were unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item. The balance and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply, and the fairness standard was not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-059 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SOUTH ISLAND HOUSE RELOCATORS LTD of Springs Junction Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-099 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE ROWAN PARTNERSHIP of Wanganui Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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...

ComplaintDNZ World Extra: Palestine Is Still The Issue – documentary – Middle East conflict – Palestinian perspective – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair Findings Standard 4 – range of significant points of view presented – no uphold Standard 5 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Standard 6 – high threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] DNZ World Extra: Palestine Is Still The Issue was a special report by John Pilger that examined the Middle East conflict, from a Palestinian perspective. The programme questioned Israeli Government policy and its impact on the Palestinian people. The programme complained about was broadcast on TV One at 8. 40pm on 21 October 2002. [2] George and Eileen Anderson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair towards Israelis....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview about legislation change to introduce paying the minimum wage to disabled people – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Principle 4 (balance) – presenter adopted aggressive manner with two interviewees – prevented interviewees from presenting significant viewpoints to listeners – listeners deprived of important information on controversial issue under discussion – unbalanced – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – one aspect of fairness complaint subsumed into consideration of Principle 4 – programme not unfair to Minister for Disability Issues – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9. 30pm on 22 June 2005. The series was set in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown), and was centred around a young priest called Father Nicholas, a group of corrupt cardinals and a child-like Pope character. [2] During the episode on 22 June 2005, Father Nicholas became a wrestling hero after accidentally knocking out pro-wrestler “Ivan the Invincible”....

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....

An application for leave to appeal this decision was refused by the High Court: CIV 2013-485-1234 [2013] NZHC 1386 PDF59....

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....