Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview with a woman concerning her removal from an anti-co-governance meeting on Morning Report breached the balance, fairness and accuracy standards. The complainant alleged the broadcaster should have included balancing comment from, or interviewed Julian Batchelor (the speaker at the event concerned). The Authority found the interview did not require balancing comment as it did not ‘discuss’ the issue of co-governance, and did not treat Batchelor unfairly. The woman’s removal alone did not constitute a controversial issue of public importance. The accuracy standard did not apply as the complainant did not allege any statements were misleading. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-027:Noble and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-027 PDF163. 37 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about an interview between Kim Hill and Rt Hon Winston Peters regarding the relationship between New Zealand First and the Labour Party was not upheld. The complainant submitted the interview was unbalanced because Kim Hill’s interviewing of Mr Peters was ‘biased, rude and condescending’. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Mr Peters challenging and critical questions, Mr Peters had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Mr Peter’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Mr Peters being treated unfairly....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interviewee’s language, broadcast during an item on Morning Report on 10 December 2018, was violent and inappropriate. The item reported on the declining memberships of sports clubs in New Zealand and featured an interview with the Club Captain of a tennis club. The interviewee commented that the tennis courts were so empty ‘you could… fire a machine gun and hit no one. ’ The Authority noted that the right to freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in their own words, provided this does not cause undue harm. In this case, the comment made by the interviewee was brief, was not overly graphic or targeted at a particular individual or group, and was not intended to be taken literally....

The Authority has not upheld a direct privacy complaint about an interview on Morning Report following the stabbing of an Auckland dairy worker. The interviewee (the local Neighbourhood Support Coordinator) speculated about who the victim could be and gave information about the living arrangements of the family who operated the dairy. The Authority did not find any breach of the privacy standard in relation to the victim’s family, on the basis the information disclosed did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. It noted in any event that the identity of the victim was officially confirmed soon after, and reporting on the circumstances surrounding the stabbing carried high public interest. Not Upheld: Privacy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about an interview on Morning Report with ‘[a]n Iranian woman, living in New Zealand … shocked by the scale of attacks from Israel on Iran’. The complainant alleged the broadcast ‘presented a one-sided narrative critical of Israel’, and omitted significant viewpoints — namely, those of ‘pro-Israel Iranians’ — and vital context. The complainant also alleged the broadcast contained material inaccuracies, by indicating Israel targeted residential buildings and misled listeners regarding the Iranian regime and Israel’s intentions. The Authority found the broadcast was not claiming nor intending to be a balanced examination of perspectives on the conflict. The audience could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant context and viewpoints from other media coverage....

ComplaintMorning Report – British newspaper reviews – left wing bias – unbalancedFindingsNo issues of broadcasting standards raised – decline to determine under s. 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During Morning Report broadcast daily on weekdays between 6. 00–9. 00am on National Radio, some selected overseas newspapers are reviewed. During the period 4 to 28 July 2000, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Times were reviewed. Mr G C C Meikle complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that its coverage of the British dailies lacked balance. He noted that considerably more reference had been given to The Guardian than to either The Daily Telegraph or The Times. In his view there was no justification for the bias he believed was demonstrated in favour of The Guardian....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – news item reported investigation into allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour by police officers – said woman claimed that serving police officers would arrive while on duty, use handcuffs and batons on her and that she was often strangled to the point of blacking out – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inappropriate for child listeners Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7b (child listeners) – contextual factors – broadcaster was mindful of child listeners – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item on Radio New Zealand National’s Morning Report programme, broadcast at approximately 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – item reported on the Australian Government's proposal to legislate for the mandatory blocking of particular websites – contained comment from a representative of the internet civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance to New Zealand – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee qualified his statements – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast during Radio New Zealand National's Morning Report programme on Tuesday 28 October 2008 reported on the Australian Government’s plan to legislate for the blocking of websites it deemed to be illegal or inappropriate....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with complainant about a possible ban on pseudoephedrine – followed by interview with a GP – interviewer told GP that complainant had suggested that over-the-counter pharmaceuticals containing pseudoephedrine were not the main source of supply for makers of “P” – similar statement made in News item broadcast after the interview – interviewer’s comment and News item allegedly misrepresented Minister’s comments – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Principle 4 (balance) – different views expressed – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Minister’s comment accepted as implication initially – later broadcast as fact – inaccurate – upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the use of the term ‘booted out’, in reference to the Speaker of the House, Hon Trevor Mallard, ejecting the Leader of the Opposition, Hon Simon Bridges, from the House, was inaccurate. The Authority found there was no reason to suggest the broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcasts complained about. The Authority found that the use of terms such as ‘booted out’ and ‘kicked out’, in reference to Members of Parliament who have been ordered by the Speaker of the House to leave the House, is common in New Zealand and therefore its use was unlikely to mislead or misinform listeners. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about three RNZ broadcasts regarding political commentator Matthew Hooton. Two items on 21 and 22 May 2020 comprised interviews with Mr Hooton about the National Party leadership contest at that time, following which an item on 24 May 2020 discussed the emergence of Mr Hooton’s conflict of interest in this regard. The complaint was the 21 and 22 May items failed to disclose the conflict and the 24 May item failed to address it adequately. The Authority did not consider the broadcasts breached the accuracy standard, noting Mr Hooton disclosed his friendship with Todd Muller (National Party) in the 21 May item and accepted he had ‘nailed his colours’ to the Muller mast in the 22 May item. The conflict of interest generated by his subsequent engagement by Todd Muller did not arise until after these broadcasts....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that segments on the News and Morning Report reporting on a murder suicide breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority noted the public interest in the broadcasts and audience’s awareness of the need to exercise discretion during news programming to regulate what their children are exposed to. The Authority also found that the News bulletins covering the item did not reach the threshold necessary to require a warning and that the warning that preceded the Morning Report item was sufficient to enable audiences to make informed choices as to whether they, or children in their care, should listen to the broadcast. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, and Violence....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two RNZ broadcasts, a week apart — Morning Report and The Detail — about New Zealand’s low-risk alcohol drinking guidelines were unbalanced and inaccurate. The Authority found that any inaccuracies regarding Canada’s alcohol guidelines were not material in the context of the overall broadcasts. With respect to balance, the Authority found the Morning Report broadcast was clearly signalled as focussing on one aspect of the much larger, complex debate on alcohol policy. Although the complainant was mentioned once during Morning Report, in the context the audience would not have expected a countering viewpoint to be presented from the complainant or the industry. The Detail carried significant public interest and sufficiently alerted listeners to alternative perspectives through a comment from the Executive Director of the New Zealand Alcohol Beverages Council and the host’s use of ‘devil’s advocate’ questioning. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report and RNZ News – items reported findings of Waitangi Tribunal report into WAI 262 claim – included interview with Don Brash and Paul Moon – reported Mr Brash’s opposition to the report’s recommendations – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – Waitangi Tribunal’s findings on WAI 262 claim was a controversial issue of public importance – RNZ News bulletin did not amount to a “discussion” – Morning Report item amounted to a “discussion” and contained balancing perspectives – alternative viewpoints provided in other coverage within period of current interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Morning Report, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National at 8....

SummaryThe subject of liable parent contributions was discussed on Nine to Noon on 3 August1993 and unemployment on Morning Report on 13 August 1993. Mr Fudakowski complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the dissenting view given in thediscussion about liable parents was unsourced and therefore was neither balanced norimpartial. With respect to the second item, he complained that comments about theinevitability of long-term unemployment were deeply offensive and lacked balance andobjectivity. In response, RNZ denied that the news items encouraged discrimination against anygroup, or that they were so lacking in balance that they were in breach of broadcastingstandards. Pointing out that the items contained expressions of opinion about matters ofpublic interest, RNZ explained that it could find no justification for the contention that thereporting of those statements imposed an obligation on the broadcaster to undertake anin-depth investigation into the subjects discussed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Allan Golden complained about two segments broadcast on RNZ’s Morning Report and Nine to Noon programmes. The Authority declined jurisdiction to accept and consider the complaints. The Authority found it was open to the broadcaster to not accept these as valid formal complaints, on the grounds the complaints were based on the complainant’s own opinions of what the broadcasts should include, rather than raising issues of broadcasting standards. Declined Jurisdiction  Introduction[1] Allan Golden lodged two separate complaints with RNZ National about an item broadcast during Morning Report on 20 November 2017, and an item broadcast during Nine to Noon on 2 November 2017....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance and accuracy standards about a series of Radio New Zealand broadcasts on 26 June 2020. The items concerned the Government’s management of COVID-19 at the international border, and referred to a series of events including the failure to test 55 individuals for COVID-19 before release from quarantine as ‘border blunders’, ‘bungling at the border’, and ‘COVID botch ups’. The Authority considered the statements were not of fact but of opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply, and the broadcasts were unlikely to mislead listeners. The Authority considered the assessment of the Government’s management of COVID-19 at the international border to be a controversial issue of public importance, but found alternative viewpoints were included to enable listeners to arrive at an informed opinion. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...