Showing 181 - 192 of 192 results.
Newshub political reporter… says it’s a blow, because he was promised a higher ranking by Andrew Little’ (newsreader) ‘Did you, though, say to Willie Jackson that he’d be in the top 10…?’
Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision.]An item on Newshub reported on renewed efforts by the New Zealand Government to secure a free trade deal with Russia, after negotiations were ‘put on hold when Vladimir Putin invaded Crimea two years ago’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘invaded’ was inaccurate as no invasion had in fact occurred.
Numerous articles related to this story appeared, for example, on Stuff.co.nz, in the New Zealand Herald and on Newshub from late December 2016 to mid-January 2017.
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision.]Four items on Newshub featured stories related to the United Kingdom and/or the British Royal Family. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the Newshub items and the reporters’ comments were biased, unfair and derogatory towards the United Kingdom and/or members of the British Royal Family.
The case carried significant public interest and therefore it was reasonable for Newshub to report the details of the case following the lapse of the suppression order. While MediaWorks understood the complainant’s concerns, it was not practicable for Newshub to examine the wider issues proposed by the complainant within the limited scope of the broadcast. A Newshub item broadcast the following day (4 February 2017) included a subsequent report about the case.
Newshub’s reporter relied on multiple separate sources within MPI, all of whom confirmed the information included in the item. Newshub verified the information it received with each source on multiple occasions. Further, Newshub had worked with these sources previously, and the information provided by them previously had proven to be accurate. Therefore, Newshub’s view was that the sources, and the information, were credible.
Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision.]A Newshub bulletin featured five separate items which the complainant considered related to the United States.
Our analysis[10] When we consider a complaint under the good taste and decency standard, we take into account the context of the broadcast, which here includes: Newshub is an unclassified news programme screened at 6pm each weekday Newshub is targeted at an adult audience the nature of news programmes, which frequently contain strong or adult material such as crime or violence.
The lack of an explicit reference to ‘Occupied Territories’ or to ‘Occupied Palestinian Territories’ did not result in the items as a whole being inaccurate or misleading.Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] An item on Newshub reported on the shooting of a wounded Palestinian man by an Israeli soldier in the city of Hebron in the West Bank.
A shorter, edited version of the report was broadcast on Newshub later that evening.
A high level of condemnation, often with an element of malice or nastiness, will be necessary to conclude that a broadcast encouraged discrimination or denigration in breach of the standard.2[7] Dr Martyn said that the people involved in the broadcast were hurt, humiliated and disappointed with Newshub’s coverage of the event, and she questioned why Newshub would ‘refer to any religion as ‘spoof’ unless they explicitly stated that is what they were (in which case, they would not be a religion)’.
In any case, the coverage was duly sensitive and respectful, was not overly intrusive and did not focus on any particular individuals at length.Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] Newshub reported on a Christchurch earthquake memorial service, which marked the five-year anniversary of the February 2011 earthquake.