Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police College – reality series following new police recruits – showed man being ejected from Westpac Stadium – man was seen resisting attempts to remove him and shouting abuse at police – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle (ii) – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6b only applies to planned appearances – Mr Walden unnecessarily identified under guideline 6f, but overall treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Police College was a reality series which traced the progress of cadets through the Police College. In an episode broadcast on TV2 at 10....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion about taxi safety – referred to taxi drivers as “cabbies” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “cabbies” not pejorative – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster not required to present views of non-Taxi Federation companies – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – did not imply that non-Taxi Federation members were at the “bottom end” of the industry – not unfair – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – programme was ambiguous as to whether Taxi Federation represented all companies – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Thousand Apologies – sketch comedy lampooning the pan-Asian experience in contemporary New Zealand – allegedly denigratory Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – programme clearly satirical and intended to be humorous – skits did not encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of A Thousand Apologies, a television sketch comedy that addressed the diversity of the pan-Asian contemporary experience in New Zealand and lampooned stereotypes and situations, was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Friday 12 September 2008. [2] One of the skits in the episode involved a man being interviewed about his experience with one airline....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on a police search that ended up with two officers being shot and a police dog being killed – contained interviews with a neighbour living next to the property where the incident occurred and the Commissioner of Police – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – interview with Police Commissioner was straightforward and respectful – Mr Broad and the police treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – presenter’s behaviour and comments did not encourage the denigration of members of the New Zealand police force –…...

Complaint3 News – child participants – mother’s consent – children of gang member sought by police – privacy – good taste – fairness – upheld by broadcaster FindingsAction taken by broadcaster sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Two pre-school children were shown in news items broadcast on 3 News at 6. 00pm and 10. 30pm on 25 January 2000. They were described as the children of a member of the "Screwdriver Gang" who was being sought by police in connection with armed robberies in Auckland. Kris Vavasour complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the privacy of the two young children had been breached. She also complained that it was a breach of the good taste standard and unfair to show footage of the children in a way which publicly identified them....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintMorning Report – audio of a woman giving birth – preceded item about maternity services – gratuitous, distressing and socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 1 and Guideline 1a; Principle 5 and Guideline 5c & Principle 7 and Guideline 7d – not socially irresponsible – not gratuitous – no warning necessary – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Morning Report which discussed the lack of maternity services in Queenstown was broadcast on National Radio on Monday 13 January 2003. The item was introduced with a brief sound effect of a woman giving birth. [2] James Cone complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the audio was gratuitous, distressing and socially irresponsible. [3] In response, RNZ said that the audio was neither socially irresponsible, nor was it intended to cause alarm....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reference to President George W Bush “leading the free world” – allegedly unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – no balancing comment required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any persons taking part or referred to – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 22 October 2004 dealt with a back-dated pay rise which had been given to Members of Parliament in New Zealand. Towards the end of the segment, the reporter compared the salary of the Prime Minister of New Zealand with that of other world leaders, including President George W. Bush of the United States....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court AP46/02 PDF1. 3 MBComplaint20/20 – "Paradise Lost" – item on child prostitution in Fiji – breach of children’s privacy – unfair depiction of child victim – discrimination on account of sex, race and ageFindingsPrivacy – privacy principle (i) – public disclosure of private facts about children – highly offensive and objectionable facts – no public interest defence under privacy principle (vi) – upholdStandard G4 – child sex abuse victim treated unfairly – upholdStandard G13 – high threshold – no upholdCross-referenceDecision No. 1999-125–137OrderBroadcast of statementCosts to complainant of $463. 50This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] "Paradise Lost", an item on 20/20, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 15 July 2001....

ComplaintLite FM – Name Game Competition – excluded unusual names – unfair – sexist – racist FindingsPrinciple 7 Guideline 7a – competition neither sexist nor racist – no uphold Principle 5 – not applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] As part of the Name Game station promotion run by Lite FM in Christchurch, names were announced on-air over a period of six weeks. When their name was read out, listeners were asked to call the station and enter a draw for $20,000. [2] Te Marunui Toki complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Lite FM, that the competition was sexist, as it excluded people of one gender when names of the other gender were called out, and racist, as Polynesian names were not announced. He also complained that it was unfair as unusual names were not included....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on legal aid lawyer Charl Hirschfeld’s resignation – stated that his “resignation comes within days of the Law Society launching an investigation into his legal aid work”, he “topped the legal aid rich list”, the LSA had “completed an investigation into payments to Mr Hirschfeld” and “in the last year Charl Hirschfeld netted $3. 2 million in legal aid money” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – Mr Hirschfeld’s arguments primarily issues of semantics – statements not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster treated Mr Hirschfeld fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Wednesday 26 January 2011, reported on legal aid lawyer Charl Hirschfeld’s resignation....

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 under the balance, accuracy and fairness standards about a broadcast of 1News discussing the United States’ decision to send more combat aircraft and war ships to the Middle East following the killing of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. The complainant argued the broadcast was unbalanced and biased towards American and Israeli interests by omitting to mention Haniyeh was the chief negotiator for Hamas in ceasefire negotiations relating to the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. The Authority found the broadcast was more of a report on recent events than a discussion of issues to which the balance standard might apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Queer Aotearoa in which it was stated the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The complaint was made under three standards: discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness. The Authority found the statement was a genuine expression of serious comment, analysis or opinion rather than something likely to incite discrimination or denigration. Regarding accuracy, the Authority noted the comment was consistent with Human Rights Commission guidance on the interpretation of the HRA, and a reasonable interpretation of the HRA. The Authority found it was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness ...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye – focused on a chemical named paraphenylenediamine – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate or misleading statements – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to seek comment from the industry body – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on TV One’s Close Up programme, broadcast on 25 May 2007 at 7pm, discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 57/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN S WERRY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about Work and Income using taxpayers’ money to pay, on behalf of beneficiaries, the penalty fees incurred in retrieving their impounded cars – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate statements – opinion of interviewees that WINZ was helping beneficiaries to commit crimes was not adopted by the reporter as a statement of fact – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – conflicting accounts about events on the day of the broadcast – Authority cannot determine whether the reporter made reasonable efforts, or reasonable opportunities were given, to present significant points of view about whether WINZ was assisting illegal activity – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standard 6 (fairness) – direct conflict in recollection of events – Authority cannot determine whether MSD was informed about the angle of the story or…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA talkback – interview with managing director of Moshims Discount House Ltd about allegations that expired food items were sent as aid to flood victims in Fiji – after interview, a listener phoned in alleging that Discount House sold food that had passed its expiry date – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcast not a factual programme or current affairs – comprised of opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond to claims – complainant and his company treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...