Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Overnight Talkback– during a discussion about gay marriage, the host described the complainant, a caller, as “incredibly rude” – host read out complainant’s fax and repeated the word “homophobic” but spelled out “faggot” – allegedly in breach of fairness and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s use of the word “homophobic” and spelling out of “faggot” did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Overnight Talkback, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 6 June 2012, the host and callers discussed the issue of gay marriage. The host spoke to a caller, “David from Queenstown”, whom he described as “incredibly rude”, before terminating the call....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A Seven Sharp item reporting on a forecast increase in New Zealand’s rat, mice and stout population due to a beech mast event, contained footage of 1080 pellets and an aerial 1080 drop. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced because it did not present the anti-1080 viewpoint. The item’s focus was not the use of 1080 so it was not necessary to put forward views for and against its use, but in any case the broadcaster alluded to three earlier items on this specific beech mast event which did refer to alternative views....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards about an item on Morning Report. The Authority did not consider referencing the iwi affiliation of the subjects featured in the piece discriminated against or denigrated other New Zealanders stuck in India due to COVID-19 who are not tangata whenua. It also found the complaint did not identify a particular individual or organisation that was alleged to have been treated unfairly in the broadcast, so the fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration and Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview with National Party Leader Christopher Luxon on Q+A with Jack Tame. The complaint alleged Tame was disrespectful and hostile to Luxon, and asked invasive personal questions, in breach of the fairness, balance and accuracy standards. The Authority did not consider Tame’s questions or comments went beyond a level of robust scrutiny or challenge that could reasonably be expected in an interview with the Leader of the Opposition on their party’s policies, particularly in the lead-up to a general election, and therefore the fairness standard was not breached. The complaints under balance and accuracy each concerned matters not addressed by the relevant standard. Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Unbreakable, which featured stories about New Zealanders with disabilities, including Golriz Ghahraman MP, was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority noted it is not unbalanced to include an MP in a story, and that as a human interest piece, alternative viewpoints were not required to be presented. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints relating to a news item reporting on ANZ increasing mortgage interest rates, which showed a brief exchange between National Party Finance Spokesperson Nicola Willis and Finance Minister Hon Grant Robertson during Question Time in Parliament. The complainants alleged the broadcast breached the accuracy and fairness standards as the broadcaster edited the footage of Robertson’s response to Willis’s question to make him seem unsympathetic and evasive. The Authority found the way in which the broadcast was edited was not likely to give the impression that Robertson did not fully address Willis’s question, and that Robertson was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that allowing an interviewee to wear what appeared to be a keffiyeh during an interview about the government’s introduction of new ‘move-on’ orders breached the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority found broadcasting the interviewee wearing this garment would not have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or have had the effect of encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, Jewish people. It noted, if the garment was in fact a keffiyeh, the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld complaints that comments made during Early Edition with Kate Hawkesby allegedly downplayed the severity of ex-Tropical Cyclone Gabrielle and associated warnings and safety measures, in breach of several broadcasting standards. The broadcast occurred during the early stages of ex-Tropical Cyclone Gabrielle, and featured Hawkesby and Mike Hosking remarking, among other things, that people ‘love the panic’, had become ‘soft’ and there was no reason for ‘this level of hysteria’. The Authority considered the comments were dismissive of the weather event and insensitive to those already suffering the consequences of Gabrielle....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was inaccurate and unfair to describe WikiLeaks as a ‘hacktivist’ organisation during a RNZ news bulletin reporting on a rise in hacktivism, and how hacktivists often work together with cyber-criminal groups. The Authority found that the term being used to describe Wikileaks was not a material inaccuracy, given WikiLeaks’ role in the hacktivist ‘ecosystem’. The Authority further found the report was not unfair to WikiLeaks or its founder. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld complaints that action taken by Radio New Zealand Ltd was insufficient, after the broadcaster upheld the complaints under the accuracy standard about a statement in a news bulletin that a recent ruling by the International Court of Justice had found Israel ‘not guilty of genocide. ’ While the Authority agreed with the broadcaster’s decision to uphold the complaints, it found RNZ had taken sufficient steps in response to the complaints, by broadcasting an on-air correction within a reasonable period after the bulletin at issue, as well as posting a correction to its website. Other standards alleged to have been breached by the broadcast were found either not to apply or not to have been breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy (Action Taken), Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on attempted rescue of surfing students being instructed by the complainant – showed confrontation between the complainant and members of the Piha Surf Lifesaving Club – reporter stated that “the first thing that [the Department of Labour] will find is that he is not even a registered surf instructor” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – accurate to say that complainant was not registered – implication was not that he had acted illegally, but that he had not demonstrated best practice – item contained clear comments from the complainant and from the school that he had not done anything wrong – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item fairly presented complainant’s response – complainant treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding an item on Newshub Live at 6pm about the current war in Ukraine. The complaint was in relation to the map used in the segment, which showed Ukraine, Russia and other nearby countries, and depicted Crimea as a part of Russia. The Authority acknowledged that the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing war in Ukraine is a highly sensitive topic and found the map did contain inaccuracies. However, the Authority found the segment was materially accurate, as the map would not have significantly affected the audience’s understanding of the programme as a whole. In the circumstances the Authority determined that regulatory intervention was not required. The programme information, law and order, and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Programme Information, Law and Order, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Story explored the issue of unconscious bias. During the introduction, footage of members of the public walking down the street was shown. Each individual was zoomed in and highlighted with special effects. The Authority upheld a complaint from JW, one of the individuals shown, that she was unfairly ‘showcased’ during the segment. Rather than being a face in the crowd, the edited footage used filming techniques that singled out the complainant and drew her into the issue under discussion without her knowledge or consent. This unduly impacted on her dignity and was unfair. The Authority recognised that bias is a sensitive issue and has the potential to cause hurt and offence. It is also an important social issue....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Rural News reported on a number of political parties ‘vowing to crack down’ on foreign ownership of farmland and contained an interview with the Federated Farmers Vice President. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item presented an inaccurate and unbalanced picture of the policies proposed by the Labour Party and others, and was unfair. The item was presented from the perspective of the Federated Farmers spokesperson who offered his personal views based on his experience buying land in New Zealand. The item sufficiently acknowledged alternative views, it carried high public interest, and no one was treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness Introduction [1] Rural News reported on a number of political parties ‘vowing to crack down’ on foreign ownership of farmland....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

Complaint20/20 – statement broadcast about a complaint upheld by the Authority – inaccurate – misleading – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – statement broadcast accurate – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair – complainant did not take part nor referred to – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] TV3 was ordered to broadcast a statement about a complaint that had been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The statement was broadcast on TV3 at the end of a 20/20 programme at approximately 8. 30pm on 30 March 2003. [2] Mark Scott complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the statement broadcast was inaccurate, misleading and unfair. As the producer of the item to which the statement related, he argued that the statement was incorrect because he had evidence to the contrary....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – contained footage of SPCA raid at his property and photographs of cats and dogs – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – photographs legitimately obtained by SPCA – use of archive footage justified given ongoing interest in Mr Balfour’s activities and properties – footage of dogs in a playpen was innocuous and used as visual wallpaper to report on court proceedings in which Mr Balfour was found guilty of serious charges – footage of Mr Balfour being served with search warrant was not obtained by “prying” – harm to Mr Balfour in terms of underlying objective of privacy standard resulted from conviction, not the item – item did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....