Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – update on a 2005 story about a Chinese family – father had been deported and mother was fighting a deportation order – interviewed the couple’s three children – daughter was shown distressed and in tears – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster failed to use discretion and sensitivity when interviewing child about a distressing situation – child was exploited – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 14 November 2006, discussed a long-running court case involving a Chinese couple who had come to New Zealand on a working visa more than a decade ago....

Summary In an interview broadcast after the jury announced its verdict in the trial of Scott Watson, Olivia Hope’s father appealed for information which would help trace the bodies of the two victims. The item was broadcast on 11 September 1999 beginning at 6. 00pm. Ms van Drunen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that Mr Hope had "blatantly accused" the parents of Scott Watson and the family of being part of a cover-up in the disappearance of the two young people. She suggested that as Mr Watson had been found guilty without a single piece of hard evidence, it was possible that he did not know what had happened to them. RNZ responded that it found it hard to conclude that what was said contained an accusation of a cover-up....

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with witness – anti-police – unbalanced – partial – prejudice to fair hearing FindingsStandard G6 – eyewitness account necessarily focused on one perspective – balance achieved over time – no uphold Standard G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A witness to the shooting of a young man by a policeman in Waitara was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on 17 July 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The item recorded that there was some discrepancy between what the eyewitness had told the police immediately after the incident and his statement to a private investigator some days later. Martyn Stewart complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was an "emotive display of pure sensationalism" which would have incited the public to be biased against the police....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – reference to “Labour” and “Labour-led” government – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – “Labour-led government” acceptable shorthand – not upheld – majority considers “Labour government” acceptable shorthand – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – no issue of fairness arises – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At various times between Tuesday 26 April and Friday 29 April 2005, on Morning Report, National Radio presenters and reporters used the following expressions: “the Labour-led government” – 26 April “the Labour government” – on 26 April (twice), 28 and 29 April “In 1999 when Labour took power” – 28 April Complaint [2] Vivienne Shepherd complained that the broadcasts breached standards of accuracy, fairness and programme information....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert and Jono’s Drive Show – Valentine’s Day “Win a Divorce” promotion – broadcast was sabotaged by participants – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – concept of the promotion was not reflected in the broadcast – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] The Rock radio station ran a promotion called “Win a Divorce” which culminated in a broadcast during Robert and Jono’s Drive Show on the afternoon of 14 February 2012. The hosts rang a second participant on the instructions of the first, her partner, who allegedly wanted a divorce....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and One News Tonight – reported on teachers’ industrial action – stated that the teachers’ union had rejected the Government’s offer of a 2 percent pay increase, and that teachers were fighting for a 4 percent increase on their base salaries – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints and spoke to representatives of the teachers – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant has not provided evidence that the figures were inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individuals or organisations he believed had been treated unfairly – no unfairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio New Zealand News – item reported that pedestrian had been hit by a bus in Wellington – newsreader stated, “St John Ambulance says a woman in her mid-forties was hit by a bus on the corner of Hunter and Featherston streets… A spokesperson says the woman sustained moderate injuries and was transferred to Wellington hospital…” – reference to St John Ambulance allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reference to St John Ambulance was not material to the focus of the item and would not have misled listeners in any material respect – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – Wellington Free Ambulance did not take part and was not referred to in the broadcast so listeners would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of it as an organisation – in any event the reference to St John Ambulance was…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed brief visual overview of New Zealand flags – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – complaint frivolous and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Items broadcast on Campbell Live on TV3 at 7pm on 22 and 23 September 2011, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag, which had been a topic of discussion during the Rugby World Cup....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Prince Philip’s birthday – host noted that the Prince had criticised a number of ethnic and social groups over the years – host mentioned the right to freedom of expression – showed a picture of Prince Philip defaced with a moustache and horns, with a speech bubble saying “I’m a dork” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – innocuous prank – raised no issue of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Prince Philip – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....

ComplaintSunday – investigation of Dr Richard Gorringe who had been found guilty of professional misconduct and disgraceful conduct through use of alternative medicines – biased – unfair – misleading FindingsStandard 4 – reasonable opportunities given – not unbalanced – no uphold Standard 6 – Dr Gorringe dealt with fairly as ample opportunity given to present views – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The use by Dr Richard Gorringe of alternative medicine, alongside conventional medicine, was investigated in an item broadcast on Sunday at 7. 30pm on TV One on 2 September 2003. Dr Gorringe had been found guilty by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on two charges of professional misconduct and one of disgraceful conduct. [2] Margaret Kirk complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was biased and unfair, and trivialised the work of Dr Gorringe....

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 1989Fair Go – item focused on couple who received verbal estimate for plumbing work that was significantly less than the final bill – included interview with the couple and the plumber –advised viewers on how to avoid unanticipated costs by obtaining written quotes – allegedly unfair to plumber FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – plumber provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his viewpoint was adequately reflected in the item – item did not create unfairly negative representation of plumber’s character or conduct – high level of public interest in advice provided to tradespeople and consumers – plumber treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview by Kim Hill with former nun and lesbian activist Monica Hingston breached broadcasting standards by including the suggestion that the Catholic Church, and by connection, all Catholics are corrupt. The Authority found that the interview did not contain a high level of condemnation, nor would it undermine community standards of good taste and decency, as it was a nuanced, considered conversation that was narrowly focused on Ms Hingston’s personal views and experiences with the Catholic Church. Taking into account public interest in the interview and the fact that the interview was clearly signalled as being from Ms Hingston’s perspective, the Authority also determined that it did not result in any unfairness to the Catholic Church. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse by a man, P against a 90-year-old woman, E. The programme also featured P's 'mentor' (M), a spokesperson from E's bank and comment from E and her grandson. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. Both P and M were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment, the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the item was accurate and the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required the presentation of alternative views. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the Labour Party’s ‘Ready for Work’ policy, which offered unemployed young people employment on the minimum wage in environmental and community projects for six months. The item reported that, according to Labour, the scheme would cost $60 million per year for 10,000 participants. However, the $60-million sum was actually ‘based on participants taking up the scheme for just four months, not the promised six’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was based on inaccurate and unsubstantiated conclusions made by the reporter featured in the item, which was misleading and damaged the credibility of the Labour Party....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A brief item on 1 News discussed a protest in Christchurch against Vero Insurance (Vero) regarding outstanding insurance claims. The item contained footage of the protestors and the newsreader stated that ‘[One of the protestors] says Vero has kept them locked in a virtual prison for seven years. ’ The broadcaster upheld a complaint from Vero under the balance and fairness standards, as Vero ought to have been given an opportunity to comment. Vero referred the complaint to the Authority on the basis it was dissatisfied with the action taken by the broadcaster in response to its original complaint, and it also maintained that the accuracy standard was breached. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the statement complained about was a statement of opinion and therefore the accuracy standard did not apply....