Search Rapua

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...

SummaryIn an item on Morning Report broadcast on 12 August at 7. 28am, the presenter suggested to an investment advisor, when he was interviewed about the possible sale of the Wellington Airport, that potential buyers would "have to be blind" to think the sale was not a political minefield. Mr Mosen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that he, as a blind person, found the comment highly offensive, as it equated blindness with stupidity. He maintained that it was distressing and unhelpful to have ignorant and inaccurate perceptions about blindness reflected by a current affairs presenter. He sought an apology. RNZ defended the use of the phrase which it asserted was used in a colloquial sense and also a metaphorical sense, and maintained that the meaning of the figurative use was perfectly clear....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with Larry Baldock about the citizens-initiated referendum on smacking – host asked the interviewee a question nine times challenging him to give an answer – host interrupted interviewee on several occasions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – host played the role of devil’s advocate – significant points of view presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee was robustly challenged and given an adequate opportunity to express his views – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintMorning Report – item about industrial accidents in timber mill – interviewer questioned union representative aggressively while appearing cordial with owner’s representative – unfair Complaint News Item – later news item included owner’s view only – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4; Principle 5 and Guidelines 5b and 5c – interviewer’s approach to each spokesperson similar – no uphold News item at 7. 30am balanced by item within period of current interest at 8. 00am – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A recent industrial accident at a timber mill, and the company’s accident record, were dealt with in an item during Morning Report broadcast on National Radio at about 7. 25am on 17 April 2003. The item included interviews with representatives from the union and the company. The discussion was referred to in an item during the news bulletin broadcast at 7. 30am....

ComplaintMorning Report – panel discussion about Biketawa Declaration – presenter biased – panellist treated unfairly FindingsPrinciple 4 – reasonable efforts made to present significant points of view – no uphold Principle 5 – discussion could have been better handled – not, however, a breach of fairness requirement – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 31 October 2000 between 7. 20am and 7. 30am, included a panel discussion about the effects of the recently announced Biketawa Declaration, in which Pacific Islands Forum leaders agreed to change a 30-year tradition of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, to allow the Forum to deal with regional crises....

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....

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....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a political commentator’s use of the phrase ‘not piss … them off too much’ when discussing Coalition Government tensions. The complainant argued the phrase was offensive. In light of the Authority’s Complaints that are unlikely to succeed guidance and previous decisions on low-level offensive language, the Authority considered it appropriate to decline to determine this complaint.   Declined to Determine (section 11(b), Broadcasting Act 1989 — in all the circumstances, the complaint should not be determined):  Offensive and Disturbing Content...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-035 Dated the 28th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CANON G J J A HADLOW of Rotorua Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Radio New Zealand report which indicated a run of hot days in Hamilton was probably unprecedented. The complainant provided records from the 1930s, suggesting Hamilton had previously experienced a heatwave of greater duration and intensity. He argued the broadcast was inaccurate and, when notified of the previous heatwave, RNZ had taken insufficient actions to correct any misleading impressions. The Authority found the statements complained about were analysis, comment or opinion to which the standard does not apply and, in any event, did not result in the broadcast being misleading. Not Upheld: 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 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 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 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....

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 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....

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...

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...