Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-028 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHANNA KOSTER of Christchurch Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-013:Jensen and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-013 PDF279. 29 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On 29 July 2017 the complainant raised with the Authority a complaint he had made to RNZ which he considered was outstanding, regarding the use of te reo Māori greetings and closings by presenters on RNZ National. The broadcaster had not accepted the complaint as a formal complaint under the Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand Codebook. The Authority therefore did not have jurisdiction to accept the complainant’s referral. The Authority further noted that, even if the complaint referral had been validly made, it would have found the content of the complaint to be trivial and vexatious, and would have declined to determine it....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on RNZ News reported on the Voluntary Euthanasia Society NZ’s (VES) calls for government action following a recently published study that indicated strong public support for some form of lawful assisted dying. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item inaccurately reported the findings of the study, and lacked balance. This was a short news report which accurately conveyed the key findings of the study to the listener. In the context of the item, it was not practical or necessary to convey the detailed nuances of the study’s findings. While the item touched on the broader issue of euthanasia, it simply reported on the findings of the study and did not amount to a discussion of the wider issue which triggered the requirements of the balance standard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a comment made by business commentator, Rod Oram, during a segment on Nine to Noon. The Authority found that Mr Oram’s view as to the effectiveness of a former Chair of a seed business was an opinion that is not subject to the accuracy standard. Not Upheld: Accuracy The item[1] A segment on Nine to Noon featured business commentator Rod Oram discussing the sale of a seed business. During the discussion Mr Oram said one of the former Chairs had been ‘highly effective’ in their previous roles. [2] The item was broadcast on 7 August 2018 on RNZ National. The complaint[3] Allan Golden complained that Mr Oram’s statement about the effectiveness of the former Chair was ‘not true’ as Mr Golden believed they had not been ‘highly effective’....

ComplaintMediawatch – National Radio – allegedly offensive languageFindings Principle 1 – language not offensive – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An interview with former broadcaster Ron Sneddon about recent changes in the radio market was broadcast during Mediawatch on National Radio at about 9. 10am on Sunday 28 September 2003. [2] Miss Hadfield complained about “offensive content and swear words” during the interview, in which references were made to: “tits, bums and fart jokes” a radio station called “The Bitch”. [3] In response, RNZ declined to uphold the complaint on the basis that the language was not offensive in the context of the broadcast. [4] Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Miss Hadfield referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority does not uphold the complaint....

An episode of The Detail explored the Productivity Commission’s recommendation the Government review Aotearoa New Zealand’s regulatory framework around genetically modified organisms to ensure they remain fit for purpose. The complainant stated the broadcast was unbalanced and misleading as it, among other reasons, overemphasised the benefits of GMOs, did not critique the Commission, was inaccurate in several respects, and suggested issues with GMOs were largely ethical rather than scientific. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the broadcast was balanced, particularly as it was focusing on a single issue. It also found the broadcast was materially accurate and unlikely to mislead listeners. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an item on Morning Report discussing data showing Wellington to have the highest assault and sexual assault rates. Discussing the causes for this, the interviewer posed the question: ‘Do we have a problem with masculinity here? ’ and a discussion followed regarding the potential contribution of ‘toxic masculinity’ to Wellington’s crime rate. The Authority found the term did not carry the derogatory connotations suggested and the item did not contain the high level of condemnation or malice towards men required to contravene the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an interview with Waikato University senior lecturer in psychology Dr Jaimie Veale was inaccurate and unbalanced. While the item discussed a controversial issue of public importance, the selection of a transgender woman to the New Zealand Olympic team, it was clearly signalled as coming from a particular perspective. It focused on one aspect of the issue, the potentially stigmatising effect of the debate on trans people, and was part of a range of media coverage on the issue. The Authority also found there was nothing inaccurate or misleading in the way Dr Veale was introduced. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with South African Rugby Union President about the possibility of a rugby game between the New Zealand Māori team and the South African team – allegedly in breach of fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee had sufficient opportunity to respond and clearly expressed his views – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Morning Report, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National between 6am and 9am on 20 February 2009, the host spent approximately six minutes interviewing the President of the South African Rugby Union. They discussed the possibility of revising the Union’s rules against playing racially selected sports teams, to allow a rugby game between the New Zealand Māori team and the South African team. The interviewee expressed the following views on the subject: . ....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Saturday Morning featured a 25-minute interview with the Vice President for Energy and Environment Policy at a think-tank in the United States. The interviewee discussed a range of matters to do with environmental policy, including her current concerns, initiatives put in place under the Obama administration that may be threatened by the Trump administration, and how to make climate change a relevant issue to voters. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unbalanced, as it only presented the ‘progressive, liberal’ perspective on climate change. The Authority considered that, in the context of an interview focused on the professional opinions and experiences of a particular individual, listeners would not have expected the full spectrum of views on climate change to be presented....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Roger Morris complained that an alleged discussion on Worldwatch about the 'Ukraine coup d'etat' failed to mention a number of key facts, primarily about the United States' involvement in the conflict. The Authority declined to determine the complaint as the broadcast identified by the complainant in his complaint did not feature any content about Ukraine. Declined to Determine: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Roger Morris complained that an alleged discussion on Worldwatch about the 'Ukraine coup d'etat' failed to mention a number of key facts, primarily about the United States' involvement in the conflict. He considered that the omission of these facts was in breach of the controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In its Morning Report programme RNZ replaced the Pacific and Te Manu Korihi bulletins with ‘feature or lead stories’, including those with a Māori focus. The Authority declined to determine a complaint about this scheduling change, finding it raised matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] In its Morning Report programme, RNZ replaced the Pacific and Te Manu Korihi bulletins with ‘feature or lead stories’, including those with a Māori focus. [2] John Malcolm complained that this change ‘discriminate[d] against those of us in provincial [New Zealand] who need to be abreast of Māori and rural issues’, because rural New Zealanders listen to the radio at a much earlier time of day and will not necessarily be able to listen to the full Morning Report programme....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that two interviews on Morning Report with contributors to the recent report ‘He Waka Roimata: Transforming our Criminal Justice System’, published by the Te Uepū Hāpai i te Ora: Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group, breached the balance and accuracy standards. The Authority found that the clear perspective and focus of the interviews, combined with the public interest and ongoing nature of the issue discussed, resulted in a balanced broadcast that would assist listeners in arriving at informed and reasoned opinions. The Authority also found that statements made by a host and an interviewee regarding the ‘three strikes’ law were not statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. Finally, the Authority found the interviews were unlikely to mislead viewers through these statements or by omission of certain information. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Saturday Morning, in which host Kim Hill interviewed physician journalist and COVID-19 expert Dr Norman Swan. The complaint was that Dr Swan’s comments distinguishing between Long-Haul COVID-19 and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome normalised stigmatisation of the latter and breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s concerns, but found the comments did not reach the high threshold of harm that justifies restricting freedom of expression under the standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

ComplaintCheckpoint – Waitara shooting – police officer not named – unbalanced interview with his lawyer – interviewer partial FindingsPrinciple 4 – a number of viewpoints heard – not partial – balance achieved over time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The lawyer for the police officer who shot and killed a man in Waitara was one of those interviewed in an item on the shooting broadcast on Checkpoint on National Radio on 16 August 2000 between 5. 00–6. 00pm. She explained some of the background to the shooting and defended the request that the officer not be named by the media. Simon Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and that it was "extraordinary" that the lawyer was interviewed and given an opportunity to defend the police officer....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday Morning contained two items on the historical relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa: Counterpoint contained a discussion of the relationship between Israel and South Africa and of Israel's arms industry; and an interview with an anti-apartheid activist discussed this topic as well as modern-day Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast breached the controversial issues standard, as no alternative perspective was presented either within the broadcast, in any proximate broadcast or in other media. The Authority declined to uphold the remainder of the complaints because: the statements complained of were either expressions of opinion or matters the Authority cannot determine and therefore were not subject to the accuracy standard; the statements did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the programme did not treat any individual or organisation unfairly....