Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about an interview between Kim Hill and US Palestinian writer and journalist Dr Ramzy Baroud was not upheld. The complaint was that the interview was unbalanced because there was no alternative perspective presented to counter Dr Baroud’s views that Israel’s actions amounted to ‘incremental genocide’ of the Palestinians, among other things. The Authority found RNZ made reasonable efforts as required by the balance standard, taking into account Ms Hill’s challenging of Dr Baroud and the use of devil’s advocate questioning, and other contextual factors. The Authority acknowledged that some may not agree with the terms used by Dr Baroud during the interview, but ultimately found that restricting the broadcaster’s or Dr Baroud’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw – interview with Sir Stephen Tindall – Sir Stephen made very brief reference to Joan Withers as a trustee of one of his projects – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Authority has previously declined to determine similar complaints from Mr Golden – complaint is trivial and bordering on vexatious for Mr Golden to continue referring similar complaints following Authority’s previous rulings – Authority declines to determine the complaint in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about Russia’s proposal to use a controlled nuclear explosion to contain an oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico – comment from expert from Auckland University – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard primarily concerned with sexual or violent material or coarse language – broadcast not likely to have offended listeners – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – light-hearted discussion – insufficient invective to encourage discrimination against or denigration of Russians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At 4....

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...

The Authority upheld a complaint that a broadcast of First Up was misleading and breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found the quiz question ‘what charges did Sweden drop last week against WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? ’ was misleading, as charges were never formally laid against Mr Assange. The Authority also found that RNZ did not make reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the broadcast noting that the error was careless. The Authority did not make any orders on this occasion. Upheld: Accuracy No Orders...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-163 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R. IAN HENRY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-063:Smits and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-063 PDF (366. 06 KB)...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-094 Dated the 17th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by S V R YOUNG of Christchurch Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintMorning Report – presenter stated "To Israel […] and the streets of Bethlehem" – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 6 – implication that Bethlehem in Israel – inaccurate – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] On Morning Report broadcast on National Radio on 24 December 2002 at approximately 7. 50am, the presenter stated "To Israel […] and the streets of Bethlehem…". [2] On behalf of the Palestine Human Rights Campaign (PHRC), David Wakim complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was inaccurate, as Bethlehem was not in Israel. [3] In response, RNZ said that the item was not inaccurate, as there was no assertion on the part of the presenter, or in the item, that Bethlehem was in Israel....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Radio – Nine to Noon – dispute about whether the presenter used the word “lie” or “line” – the former allegedly offensiveFindingsPhrase used was “that is a desperate line” – not in breach of broadcasting standards – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On National Radio on 9 September 2005 on the Nine to Noon programme, National Party deputy leader Gerry Brownlee said, referring to Radio New Zealand, “this is Radio Labour at its best”. [2] In response to this comment, the presenter said either “that is a desperate line” or “that is a desperate lie”. Complaint [3] Michael Gibson said that he had heard the presenter respond “that’s a lie”. He considered the presenter’s comment was damaging and offensive. He stated that it breached “at least one” of the broadcasting standards....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A panel discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora suggested that fraud in the ‘Māori sector’ is often treated differently to other fraud. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the programme breached standards because the panellists should have made reference to the ‘2004 Feltex IPO fraud’ as an example of ‘non-Māori fraud’. The complainant’s concerns were matters of personal preference and editorial discretion, and the Authority’s decisions on previous complaints should have put him notice of the likely outcome of this complaint. Declined to Determine: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During a panel discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora, one of the topics was the criticism levelled at a Native Affairs investigation into the potential misappropriation of public funds by the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-051:Greer and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1991-051 PDF815. 03 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – item about industrial action by Progressive Enterprises and potential involvement of Maritime Union – host interviewed Maritime Union general secretary – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – statement complained about was peripheral to the controversial issue of public importance under discussion – host not required to challenge every statement made by an interviewee – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 8 September 2006 at 7. 51am, an item on Morning Report discussed the lockout imposed by Progressive Enterprises against striking members of the National Distribution Union (NDU). Progressive held approximately 45% of the New Zealand grocery market and operated the Foodtown, Woolworths and Countdown supermarket groups....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported on tensions between the Horowhenua Rowing Club and certain local Māori residents over the future of the club’s use of the building next to Lake Horowhenua. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The item carefully conveyed a complex issue, was not factually inaccurate and would not have misled viewers in any material respect. While the conflict surrounding the rowing club’s presence at Lake Horowhenua is a controversial issue of public importance, the item included the viewpoints of both parties and was sufficiently balanced. The item did not treat the nominated individuals unfairly, as they were not criticised and had a reasonable opportunity to give their views....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint and RNZ News– the Executive Director of the Rape Prevention Education Group, Dr Kim McGregor, stated, “I think our focus has to be on the safety of our children, and we know that approximately one in four girls and one in eight boys are likely to experience some form of sexual violence before the age of 16” – news item later reported Dr McGregor “claims”, before repeating the figures – figures allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – Dr McGregor’s comment was not a statement of fact but reflected her views and experiences, and was presented from an advocacy perspective – the figures were approximates and while contentious, were supported by some independent research – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-070:Boys and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-070 PDF256. 02 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Ideas: Cut or Uncut – item discussed Professor Sitaleki Finau’s call for male circumcisions to be publicly funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Health for cultural and health reasons – item included interviews with six people who provided their views on the topic – allegedly unbalanced Findings Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Radio New Zealand National called Ideas: Cut or Uncut, broadcast at 11am on 16 September 2007, discussed male circumcision and a call by Professor Sitaleki Finau, Massey University’s Director of Pacific Studies, for the practice to be publicly funded in New Zealand for cultural and health purposes....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – items discussed results of a “clamp down” on drug-taking truck drivers in New Zealand and Australia – interviews with CEO of the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency and a representative of the union for road transport workers – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – consideration of whether drug-taking by truck drivers is a widespread problem in New Zealand, and the implications for road safety, did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – at this stage it is not an issue that has been widely discussed or debated publicly – broadcaster nevertheless provided some balance in the items – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report featured an interview between presenter Kim Hill and a seismologist from GNS Science, following a 4. 3-magnitude earthquake the previous night. At the beginning of the interview, during a discussion of the seismologist’s initial reaction to the earthquake, Ms Hill said, ‘WTF’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term ‘WTF’ in this broadcast was unacceptable and a breach of the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found that, taking into account relevant contextual factors, including the nature of the programme, audience expectations of RNZ and Kim Hill, and the fact that the offensive word implied was not explicitly stated in the broadcast, the use of ‘WTF’ did not threaten community norms of taste and decency, or justify restricting the right to freedom of expression....