Search Rapua

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 declined to determine a complaint about an interview with National Party MP and Leader of the Opposition Christopher Luxon. The complaint alleged the interview was disrespectful and biased, with the interviewer interrupting and expressing their own political views. The Authority has consistently not upheld complaints of a similar nature, and this complaint did not raise any specific issues which would distinguish it from the previous findings on the same issue. Decline to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Balance (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on the standard of care in rest homes in New Zealand – producer went undercover as a caregiver for five days in a rest home on Auckland’s North Shore – presenter and undercover producer raised a number of concerns regarding the quality of care being provided in the rest home – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – owners provided with an adequate opportunity to respond to allegations – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide significant viewpoints on the controversial issue discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – undercover producer’s opinions and impressions not statements of fact – decline to determine whether undercover producer contracted an MRSA infection from rest home – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – legitimate use of covert filming – in the public interest to broadcast the material – item treated…...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

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 Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – item on a man named Paul Cleave and his attempts to get his camera repaired – item explained that Mr Cleave had received a loan camera from the retailer – Mr Cleave was shown stating that he was not going to return the loan camera – the presenter made a number of comments about him taking the loan camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, balance and fairness standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – the Authority received conflicting evidence on two statements complained about and declined to determine them – the other three statements complained about were accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a fair representation of Mr Cleave’s conduct – item’s change in focus was prompted by Mr Cleave’s own behaviour – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Mr Cleave signed a consent form allowing…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Native Affairs – item looked at the work Te Whanau Manaaki O Manawatu Trust was doing for Māori suffering from alcohol, drug and violence issues – item contained interviews with two people who were part of the trust’s recovery programmes – item contained footage of gang members – presenter made various statements about the interviewees – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about being drug and alcohol-free related to the parties, not Mr B and Ms D themselves – statement relating to the trust’s DHB funding inaccurate – action taken by the broadcaster to rectify the inaccuracy appropriate in the circumstances – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard applies to individuals and organisations not communities – not unfair for the broadcaster to use library footage of gangs – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with Sir Eion Edgar – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Monday 22 February 2010, the host interviewed Sir Eion Edgar as he had recently been named Senior New Zealander of the Year....

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 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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Rotten Shame – investigated systematic failures in the building industry that led to the leaky homes crisis – reporter door-stepped building inspector who had inspected a house eleven years earlier which had since been demolished – portion of the interview included in the programme – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr George by door-stepping him was unfair – broadcaster’s action in upholding the complaint and apologising to the complainant in its decision was inadequate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – other aspects of the programme were not unfair to the complainant – item focused on systematic failures which led to the leaky homes crisis rather than on the…...

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....

ComplaintThe Edge – comments about Aotea College students – two references to "burning the place down" – reference to breathalysing students – ill-informed, harmful and malicious FindingsPrinciple 5 – misdirected humour – negative comments – borderline – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryComments about Aotea College students, made in the course of a discussion about a secondary school stage competition, were broadcast on The Edge (a radio network) on 30 May 2001 between 3. 00pm and 7. 00pm. The announcer twice asked whether students from Aotea College had burned the venue down, and also asked if they had been breathalysed at the door. Julia Davidson, the principal of Aotea College complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments were ill-informed, harmful and malicious. The RadioWorks did not uphold the complaint....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-061:Department of Social Welfare and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-061 PDF521. 05 KB...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go that dealt with various issues arising from a house being built breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found the programme was inaccurate and misleading in its portrayal of the issues involved in building the house. It found the complainants were portrayed unfairly and their views were not fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of the privacy standard, and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance.   Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness Not Upheld: Privacy, Balance Orders: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement on air and online; Section 16(1) $2,000 legal costs and $98. 70 disbursements, Section 16(4) $1000 costs to the Crown...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item entitled “Fair Game” explored the question of whether fish feel pain – focussed on big game fishing – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – significant viewpoints presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate on points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to deep-sea fishermen – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 18 October 2004, was entitled “Fair Game” and explored the question of whether fish feel pain. The item centred on big game fishing and the introduction said: Bullfighting, cock fighting, bear baiting. Some cultures have delighted in prolonging the torment of animals, under the guise of some sort of noble contest....

ComplaintNine to Noon – interview with Daniel Goldhagen author of book which suggested Catholic responsibility for the Holocaust – called for annotations to the New Testament – unbalanced – unfair FindingsPrinciple 4 and Principle 5 – author’s opinions challenged by interviewer – discrimination not encouraged – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Daniel Goldhagen, the author of a book which alleged Catholic complicity in the persecution of Jews during the Second World War, was interviewed on Nine to Noon. This programme is broadcast on National Radio between 9. 00am–12 noon each weekday. Mr Goldhagen called for annotations to the New Testament to mitigate the effect of those passages which he said were offensive to Jews. [2] Colin Wilson complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair and unbalanced....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....