Search Rapua

SummaryLindsay Perigo in "The Politically Incorrect Show" broadcast on Radio Pacific on 10 May 1998 between 10. 00–10. 20am stated that he was shocked to have been told that a named lecturer at the University of Auckland had forbidden her graduate economics class to invite Sir Roger Douglas or anyone from the Business Roundtable to speak to the class. The University of Auckland, through the Office of the Vice Chancellor, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks breached the good taste standard, were inaccurate, unfair and taken out of context. Radio Pacific responded first by noting that the show was unashamedly subjective, and promoted libertarian ideas....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-134:Sage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-134 PDF779. 51 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A 3 News item about Andrew Little's 'state of the nation' address, in which he promised that under the Labour Party, New Zealand would have the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, featured an exchange between the reporter and Mr Little about unemployment rates. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was misleading and unfair to Mr Little in giving the impression he did not know New Zealand's current unemployment rate when in fact he did. It was clear that the figure Mr Little was unable to quote was the current lowest OECD unemployment rate and the item did not unfairly distort his views. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness Introduction [1] A 3 News bulletin reported the 'state of the nation' address from each of the leaders of the main political parties....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub explored concerns of members of the public and the Christchurch City Council regarding potential water contamination from a bore drilled by Cloud Ocean Water and pending judicial review action taken against Environment Canterbury (ECan) over their resource consent processes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair to Cloud Ocean Water. The Authority found that Cloud Ocean Water’s responses to questions from Newshub prior to the broadcast were fairly reflected in the item, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled regarding the nature of Cloud Ocean Water’s involvement in the resource consent process or the judicial review....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fast Times at Ridgemont High – female movie characters shown practising on carrots how to perform oral sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and fairness FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – no explicit sexual activity was shown – movie was AO and broadcast outside of children’s viewing times – warning for sexual material allowed parents to exercise discretion – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Fast Times at Ridgemont High was broadcast on C4 at 8. 30pm on Wednesday 9 December 2009. At approximately 8. 42pm, two teenage female characters in the movie were shown eating in a high school cafeteria....

ComplaintThe Edge – comments about Aotea College students – two references to "burning the place down" – reference to breathalysing students – ill-informed, harmful and malicious FindingsPrinciple 5 – misdirected humour – negative comments – borderline – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryComments about Aotea College students, made in the course of a discussion about a secondary school stage competition, were broadcast on The Edge (a radio network) on 30 May 2001 between 3. 00pm and 7. 00pm. The announcer twice asked whether students from Aotea College had burned the venue down, and also asked if they had been breathalysed at the door. Julia Davidson, the principal of Aotea College complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments were ill-informed, harmful and malicious. The RadioWorks did not uphold the complaint....

ComplaintPaul Holmes Breakfast – Newstalk ZB – Inspector General of SIS described as “old duffer” and “old buffer” – unfair – apology to Inspector General the following morning – process described as travesty – unbalanced – unfair FindingsPrinciple 5 – complaint not upheld by broadcaster – comment questioned competence – uphold No OrderBroadcaster argued that action taken by host sufficient – Authority agrees – no order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The continuing detention of Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui was a topic dealt with in an editorial comment by the host on Paul Holmes Breakfast, broadcast on Newstalk ZB at about 7. 25am on 7 August 2003. Expressing his displeasure at the continuing detention, the host described the Inspector General of the SIS, among other things, as an “old gent”, “that old duffer” and “the old buffer”....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Prime News item reported on the trial of a former Nazi guard at Auschwitz and referred to the camp as a ‘Polish camp’. The complainant alleged this statement was inaccurate because it was not a ‘Polish camp’, but was rather a Nazi camp located in Poland. The Authority recognised that the labelling of concentration camps as part of the Nazi regime remains a sensitive issue and one of historical importance, which broadcasters should be mindful of when choosing the language to be used. Nevertheless, in the context of the item the Authority did not consider that viewers would have been misled. Not Upheld: Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Prime News reported on the trial of a former Nazi guard as follows: A former Auschwitz guard has gone on trial in Germany for 170,000 counts of accessory to murder. ....

ComplaintOne News – Olympic competitors banned for drug use – athlete Marion Jones suspected – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – not applicable Standard G4 – report on speculation not unfair – no uphold Standard G5 – speculation not illegal – no uphold Standards G14, G19 and G21 – not applicable This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Under the heading "Drug Cheats", a promo for Holmes broadcast on TV One on 28 September 2000 questioned whether athlete Marion Jones and swimmer Inge de Bruijn had taken performance-enhancing drugs before the Olympic Games in Sydney. John O’Neill complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the allegations required an explanation. He said he had not heard anything to link athlete Marion Jones to drugs, and he wondered where TVNZ had got its information, and whether the allegation was justified....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-111 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ST BEDE'S COLLEGE of Christchurch Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on woman who sought a refund for baby items purchased from the complainant’s business – reporter approached complainant for an interview at her place of business – footage and audio recording of the conversation was broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no previous attempts were made to obtain comment before door-stepping the owners at their place of business – covert filming and recording of conversation meant that the owners were not properly informed of the nature of their participation as required by guideline 6c – owners specifically stated that they did not want to be filmed or recorded – tone of programme was negative towards owners and their position was not adequately presented – owners treated unfairly – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not even-handed as required by…...

Complaint3 News – item about New Zealand First party convention – Winston Peters described as having "once again played the race card" – inaccurate – unjust and unfair – item lacked balance and impartiality FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate to state Mr Peters played the "race card" – no uphold Standard G3 – item acknowledged right of Mr Peters and his supporters to express their opinions – no uphold Standard G4 – Mr Peters not dealt with unjustly or unfairly – no uphold Standard G6 – item not lacking in balance, impartiality or fairness – no uphold Standard G7 – no deceptive programming practice – decline to determine Standard G13 – no uphold Standard G14 – no uphold Standard G19 – editing did not distort views – no uphold Standard G20 – views fairly presented – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintRadio Sport – host Doug Golightly – men’s refuges derided as unnecessary for real New Zealanders – only use was for beaten partners of homosexual men – complainant’s email misread – unfair – irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 7 Guideline 7a – high threshold not reached – no uphold Principle 5 – change to email – implication that writer was homosexual – complainant not identified – on balance not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Radio Sport programme on Saturday morning 17 August 2002, hosted by Doug Golightly, included a number of references to men’s refuges. The host questioned their need for "real" New Zealanders, suggesting that only the beaten partners of homosexual men would use them. That attitude was reflected in his comments on some emails he referred to during the broadcast....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – wanted offender described as “possibly Māori but pale skinned” and “possibly Māori, [with a] light complexion” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – segment did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Māori as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A segment on Police Ten 7 profiled an aggravated robbery of a bar in Christchurch. Viewers were told that it was committed by three men, two armed with guns and one armed with a crowbar. The segment included security footage of the robbery, outlined the facts of the case, and outlined ways that viewers may be able to help police identify the offenders....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview between host Kim Hill and John Tamihere, Chief Executive of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report breached broadcasting standards. It found the interview did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, noting that the robust nature of the interview was in line with audience expectations of RNZ and Hill. It also found the balance standard was not breached on the basis that Tamihere was given sufficient time to express his views and, given other media coverage, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other perspectives regarding how to best increase Māori vaccination rates. It further found that Tamihere was not treated unfairly during the interview. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance and Fairness...

The Authority has upheld a complaint about two broadcasts on Humm FM, finding that the complainant was treated unfairly. The Authority found that comments made by the host during the broadcasts were likely to reflect negatively on the complainant and to impact on his personal and professional reputation. As the complainant was adversely affected, he should have been given an opportunity under the fairness standard to respond to the comments made about him. The Authority emphasised that the right to broadcast carries with it privileges and responsibilities, and in this case the host used his platform to air his personal grievances against the complainant without giving him an opportunity to comment, which was unfair....