Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported – release of woman’s lawyer’s letter when lawyer was criticised by Minister of Immigration – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair to lawyer and failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – no principles of law involved – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – lawyer not given opportunity to respond to Minister’s criticism – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misleading as to source of letter – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to lawyer – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent developments in the case of a young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported were covered in an item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 beginning at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reporting that Michael Jackson’s appearance at the World Music Awards had disappointed both critics and fans – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item did not include material which breached good taste and decency norms – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Michael Jackson – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Michael Jackson’s appearance at the World Music Awards in London was covered in an item broadcast on One News on TV One on 17 November 2006 beginning at 6. 00pm....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Checkpoint – report stated that Queenstown may face an energy crisis in the future – the words electricity, energy and power were used interchangeably – allegedly in breach of balance, fairness, accuracy and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 6 (accuracy) – item was not deceptive – listeners would not have been misled – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – standard did not apply because the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard did not apply – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item mentioned Charlotte Dawson a number of times – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Decline to determine complaint under s. 11(a) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 on 8 November 2005 at 10pm contained a segment called “Save our Stars”, in which an actor went around the streets of Auckland collecting donations for various television presenters currently working for Prime Television. Correspondence [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the number of times Charlotte Dawson, a local celebrity, was mentioned in the programme. He argued that she had been referred to at least 11 times in the last 10 minutes of the episode, and submitted that Standards 4, 5 and 6 had been breached....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reporting research into filicide, where parents murder their children – presenter noted that filicide “is often committed by men” – interviewed two women whose partners had murdered their children and referred to a third case where a mother had murdered her daughters – allegedly unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance in terms of balance standard – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not allege that any person or organisation taking part or referred to in the broadcast was treated unfairly – standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether surprise witness at the retrial had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to not include viewpoints of the defence and David Bain – not upheld – Daryl Young was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – it was an authorial documentary approached from a particular perspective as envisaged by guideline 4b…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – political discussion – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – robust political discussion – vital component of freedom of expression that politicians and public figures are scrutinised – panellist’s comments about Phil Goff were not “abusively personal” – Phil Goff treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A political discussion was broadcast during Nine to Noon on Radio New Zealand National on the morning of 3 October 2011. [2] Dorothy Bauld made a formal complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ), the broadcaster, alleging that the broadcast breached standards relating to controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration....

The Authority upheld a complaint that a Checkpoint report summarising the complainant’s submission at a Waitematā local board public meeting was inaccurate and unfair to her. The item reported that ‘the sparks continued to fly when activist Lisa Prager described how she had claimed mana whenua status in her bid to save the trees [on Ōwairaka Mt Albert] but now regrets the move. [One] board member… refused to thank Ms Prager for her submission because, she said, her comments were “a bit racist”. ’ The Authority agreed with Ms Prager that the use of the word ‘regrets’ did not accurately reflect her view expressed at the meeting: “. . . I retire any claim to being mana whenua whatsoever. But I have no regrets in standing up and initiating the conversation. . ....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Q+A, broadcast on TVNZ 1, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which included questions about the Government’s COVID-19 response, leaking of information regarding the ‘Green School’ funding, New Zealand First Party funding, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and a tax-payer funded trip of Mr Peters’ two friends to Antarctica. The complainant argued the interview breached the fairness standard because the broadcaster did not give Mr Peters notice of his proposed contribution regarding the various topics raised. The Authority found the wide-ranging and robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected for a high profile and senior political figure like Mr Peters on matters of significant public interest in the lead up to a general election. Not Upheld: Fairness...

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera trial evaluated six car grooming companies – complainant’s business sign was shown in establishing shot for another company’s evaluation – allegedly in breach of fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster could have taken more care but shot was brief and the programme made it clear which company was being evaluated – not unfair to complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV3 on Tuesday 4 November 2009, the presenter summarised the results of a hidden camera trial in which an actress hired six different car grooming companies. Target hid a ten-dollar note in the back of the car and some change in the front seat as a test of the car groomers’ honesty....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about a 15-year-old girl who had run away from her home in Auckland – showed the girl in security camera footage in a shop with two young companions – included footage of the house she was found in – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and children’s interestsFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boys not portrayed as being at fault – not unfair – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 February 2005 told the story of a 15-year-old Auckland girl, Emma, who had run away from home to a family in Te Awamutu....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about NZ Army engineers in Iraq – reference to an article written by the complainant and published in the “Sunday Star-Times” – item’s focus was engineers’ reaction to the article’s claims that their achievements had been exaggerated – complainant alleged that item unfairly represented article, and was inaccurate and unbalancedFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item’s focus was reporting reaction to the article’s claims of exaggerating the achievements of engineers and did not require further balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item inaccurately reported that newspaper article said that the engineers were exaggerating their achievements – not otherwise inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – article ambiguous in parts – unfair to complainant to misreport the exaggeration claims as being made by the engineers – not otherwise unfair – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – news item reported that Nicholas Keesing undertook an election smear campaign “to get revenge” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld complaint under Standards 5 and 6 – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster upheld complaint under two standards and offered corrective statement – action taken sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item broadcast on Newstalk ZB at 12pm on 23 November 2008 reported that “Newstalk ZB can now reveal what lies at the bottom of a smear campaign, in one of the country’s key electorates during the Election....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with Larry Baldock about the citizens-initiated referendum on smacking – host asked the interviewee a question nine times challenging him to give an answer – host interrupted interviewee on several occasions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – host played the role of devil’s advocate – significant points of view presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee was robustly challenged and given an adequate opportunity to express his views – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not applicable – not upheld 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, 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…...