Search Rapua

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item discussed the assault on convicted murderer William Bell by fellow prison inmates – presenter made a statement regarding the assault – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s statement was sarcastic – made clear to viewers that neither host supported violence against prisoners – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people referred to were 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...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an interview with Hon Paul Goldsmith on Morning Report breached the balance and fairness standards. As the complaint did not specify a particular ‘controversial issue of public importance’ the balance standard did not apply. The Authority highlighted the value of robust political discourse and the vital role of media in encouraging and engaging in such discourse. Considering the nature of the programme and contextual factors, including the significant public interest in the interview and Mr Goldsmith’s experience in dealing with the media, the Authority did not find Mr Dann’s interview approach to be unfair. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

A segment on The Project reported on ‘hateful attacks’ occurring during Pride month, including claims of discrimination at Bethlehem College (and the Ministry of Education’s announcement it will investigate the issue) and the burning down of a Rainbow Youth centre in Tauranga. The segment included an interview with a rainbow activist who considered ‘extremist Christians’ had burnt the centre down. The presenters discussed the issue following the report and noted they hoped the investigation would bring about ‘some change in a place that really needs it. ’ The complainant considered the segment breached various standards as the cause of the fire was under investigation at the time of the broadcast, and the College was portrayed unfairly. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the relevant comments did not reach the high threshold justifying a restriction on freedom of expression....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on the verdict of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial in the United States breached broadcasting standards. The complainant considered the item inaccurate and unbalanced as it allegedly misrepresented events around the trial including the origins of the protest, the presiding Judge, and the public’s response to the verdict. The Authority considered the broadcast was materially accurate given its focus on the verdict from the trial. Any inaccuracies were unlikely to significantly affect viewers’ understanding of the item. The balance and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply, and the fairness standard was not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on The Detail that discussed Auckland Council efforts to monitor and improve the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches. The complaint was that the item failed to present alternative views, or test or challenge the views presented by Auckland Council representatives. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of information on the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches, and the broadcast approached the issue from a particular perspective, not purporting to be a balanced examination of the adequacy of Auckland Council efforts. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-514 PDF428. 08 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – three items discussing proposal by Wellington City Council to scrap free parking – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Principles 5 and 6Principle 5 (fairness) – Wellington City Council treated unfairly – upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – items left the impression that the Council was considering scrapping free weekend parking – inaccurate – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 20 April 2007, the presenter of Radio New Zealand National’s Morning Report programme, Sean Plunket, commented that the Wellington City Council was “looking at scrapping its free weekend and evening parking in the city”. He said: Retailers are furious....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Mike Hosking regarding Director General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield. Mr Hosking said Dr Bloomfield ‘lied to the Select Committee’ and was a ‘liar’. The Authority found the accuracy and fairness standards were not breached as the comments were distinguishable as the opinion of the presenter and they did not result in Dr Bloomfield being treated unfairly. Given Dr Bloomfield’s high profile position, he can reasonably expect to be the subject of robust scrutiny. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness  ...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a clip of members of Action Zealandia shown in the documentary Patrick Gower: On Hate breached the fairness standard. The clip, approximately four seconds long, showed several unidentifiable members walking with a flag bearing Action Zealandia’s symbol. The complainant alleged that the broadcast unfairly associated the group with terrorism, and that Action Zealandia should have been given the opportunity to comment. The Authority considered the group’s participation was minor in the context of the broadcast. The broadcaster was therefore not required to inform Action Zealandia that the clip would be featured. It further found that the broadcaster was not obliged to give Action Zealandia an opportunity to comment as part of the documentary. Not Upheld: Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The item investigated a mother’s concerns following her son getting severe sunburn despite applying Banana Boat SPF50 sunscreen, and more broadly how sunscreens are tested under New Zealand regulations, and whether the public should be able to rely on claims on sunscreen labels. The Authority found the mother’s comments were clearly her opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply, and the programme was not otherwise inaccurate or misleading. The programme did not allege Banana Boat sunscreen does not work, nor that it does not comply with regulatory requirements. The complainant, as the company responsible for Banana Boat, was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to issues raised in the story and its response was fairly presented. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on vandalism at Horowhenua Rowing Club – included footage of the complainant verbally abusing a kayaker, and interview with complainant – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item suggested that the complainant may have been responsible for the vandalism – however, the complainant was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut that suggestion and the reporter made it clear that no one had been charged for the vandalism – the complainant explained his behaviour as depicted in the footage – use of the term “uncle” to link the complainant and a young rower would not have changed viewers’ impression of the complainant or the situation – reference to assault conviction was correct at the time of broadcast – overall, complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term “uncle”…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]One of the hosts of talkback show, The Two, treated two callers in a way that the complainant considered to be unfair. The broadcaster upheld his complaint in relation to one of the callers. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient, or that the broadcast otherwise breached standards. Talkback radio is recognised as a robust and opinionated forum in which hosts may sometimes behave rudely. The host in this case was expressing her opinion, and her comments did not go beyond what could reasonably be expected....

An appeal against this decision was allowed in part in the High Court with the Authority instructed to amend its order: AP158/91 PDF (204. 76 KB)Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-025:Mansell and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-025 PDF683. 79 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Radio New Zealand news bulletin reported on a sod turning ceremony marking the start of the upgrade of the Hagley Oval in Christchurch. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item made inadequate mention of the widespread opposition to the upgrade, saying only that it had been challenged by ‘some nearby residents’. The item acknowledged the upgrade was controversial, and the nature and scale of the opposition was not material to the focus of the brief news item, so listeners would not have been misled. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Controversial Issues, FairnessIntroduction[1] A Radio New Zealand news bulletin reported on a sod turning ceremony marking the start of the upgrade of the Hagley Oval in Christchurch....