Search Rapua

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an item on 1News discussing the Government’s announcement of a new funding package for Pharmac, which included ‘up to seven’ of the 13 cancer drugs earlier promised by the National Party. The item’s introduction questioned, ‘Where does that leave the remaining six cancer-fighting drugs National pledged? ’ The complaint was that the item was inaccurate, unfair and biased, by failing to mention that the Government had committed to replacing the remaining six drugs with ‘alternatives just as good or better’ (which other news outlets had reported). The Authority agreed the item was misleading by omission, by not specifically answering the question of what happened to ‘the remaining six’ drugs – which was a material point and carried public interest, in particular for those counting on receiving the promised medicines....

A news bulletin on Newstalk ZB reported on the upcoming speaking tour of New Zealand by Posie Parker. The complainant considered the item’s portrayal of Parker (including through its tone and description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans rights activist’ and a ‘trans-exclusionary speaker’ rather than a ‘women’s rights campaigner’) was in breach of the balance, fairness, accuracy and discrimination and denigration broadcasting standards. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply as the item was a straightforward news report which did not ‘discuss’ a controversial issue of public importance and, in any event, listeners would have been aware of alternative viewpoints. The Authority also found, given Parker’s views, the descriptions ‘anti-trans rights activist’ and ‘trans-exclusionary speaker’ were fair and accurate. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the Political Editor on Newshub Live at 6pm referring to ‘New Zealand Loyal conspiracy candidate Liz Gunn’s party of two” breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the balance standard did not apply. It also found the comment was not unfair noting the party could reasonably expect such robust commentary in the lead up to an election and the party leader had previously described it as a ‘compliment’ to be referred to as a conspiracy theorist. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

Warning — This decision contains references to sexual violence. The documentary Swipe with Caution investigated the use of online dating apps, including interviews with relevant experts and dating app users, as well as detailing specific case studies. One of those case studies involved the complainant, who was convicted of sexual violation and assault after meeting with Ms X through a dating app. Ms X, through an actor, retold her story of the night. The complainant considered the broadcast was inaccurate and portrayed him unfairly. He argued Ms X’s recollections were presented as matters of proven fact but were inconsistent with the agreed facts identified in the Court’s sentencing decision. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the particular segment had high public value, as it involved a survivor telling her story, and was otherwise materially accurate....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

A complaint about an interview between Susie Ferguson and Hon Judith Collins regarding issues which arose in the preceding day’s Leaders’ Debate was not upheld. Given the level of public interest in the interview and Ms Collins’ position and experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Ferguson’s interview style did not result in Ms Collins being treated unfairly. Given the framing and structure of the interview, there was no lack of balance. The question about Ms Collins’ motivations for praying (and her photograph being taken) in a chapel was not likely to encourage the different treatment, or devalue the reputation, of Christians. The accuracy standard did not apply as the relevant statements were comment, analysis or opinion. Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-104 Dated the 10th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CANTERBURY HEALTH LIMITED of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a complaint that an interview with Sir Andrew Dillon, the CEO of the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that listeners were invited by the item to draw negative comparisons between the role and functions of NICE and of PHARMAC in the New Zealand context, which was misleading through the omission of relevant contextual information about the two agencies. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the balance standard, as inviting a comparison of the two agencies did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue to which the balance standard applied....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 76/94 Dated the 1st day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by TERRY TARRANT of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

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....

SummaryAn item on One Network News, broadcast on TV One on 26 May 1998 commencing at 6. 00 pm, reported on increased cannabis use among young people in Northland. It referred to the suspension of students from several schools, and included an interview with a student from Kaitaia College. He was asked how long it would take him to get drugs, and replied "about half an hour". The principal of Kaitaia College complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that promises made by the interviewer that the item would not reflect badly on the college were broken. Of the many comments made by that student and another during the interview, which were pertinent to the issue, the one chosen to represent their view had inaccurately left the impression that cannabis was a major issue at the college, he wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – host repeatedly referred to the Catholic Church as “the church of paedophilia” and commented that “the church is rife with paedophilia among its priests” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, fairness and accuracy Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issues of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – the church’s representative was given a sufficient opportunity to rebut the comments made by the host – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – host did not make any unqualified statements of fact – the accuracy standard did not apply – not upheld  This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Radio Pacific – talkback host Mark Bennett – critical of appointment of gay or lesbian police liaison officer – comments said to encourage denigration – inaccurate – unfairFindings Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – odious comment – obsolete stereotypes – comparators used displayed illegal behaviour – high threshold for breach not attainedPrinciple 5 and Guideline 5c – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 6 and Guideline 6c – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary[1] The appointment of a gay and lesbian police liaison officer in Hamilton was the subject of critical comment by the host (Mark Bennett) in a broadcast on Radio Pacific talkback. The comments were broadcast at about 3. 15pm on Wednesday 15 October 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – promos for the programme contained footage not used in the actual broadcast – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – person alleged to have been treated unfairly did not take part in and was not referred to in the item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

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, unfair and denigratoryFindingsPreliminary findings – Authority applied TVNZ v VoTE approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Authority must consider whether finding a breach of standards would impose unreasonable limitation on free speech Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors favour broadcaster – public interest does not require finding a breach of standards simply because broadcasts lampooned Catholicism – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold in light of protection given to satire in 6(g)(iii) – threshold one of vitriol or hate speech – fact that offence caused of itself insufficient to find breach of standard – programmes not realistic as complainant alleged – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – satirical programmes would only be unfair in…...