Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Morning Report interview with Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer concerning the Israel/Gaza war. The complaint alleged the interview was unbalanced because no alternative perspective was presented to counter Ngarewa-Packer’s comments that Israel’s actions in Palestine amounted to genocide and apartheid, among other things, and that those statements were also inaccurate. The Authority acknowledged people may not agree with the terms used by Ngarewa-Packer during the interview and some would find them inflammatory, but ultimately found restricting the broadcaster’s and Ngarewa-Packer’s right to freedom of expression would be unjustified....

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...

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...

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 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...

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 141/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DEAN KOCH of Eastbourne Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A complaint from Seafood New Zealand Ltd (Seafood NZ) about an interview between Morning Report host Guyon Espiner and Dr Russell Norman of Greenpeace was not upheld. Dr Norman and Mr Espiner discussed Greenpeace’s view that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had been ‘captured’ by the fishing industry, and why MPI has not prosecuted anyone for under-reporting whiting catches, with reference to a leaked MPI report from 2012. While RNZ acknowledged the interview did not meet its internal editorial guidelines, as it should have at least acknowledged the views of other stakeholders, the Authority did not find any breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority found the interview was unlikely to mislead listeners as it was clear that the interview comprised Dr Norman’s and Greenpeace’s opinions and analysis....

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 several broadcasts on RNZ National concerning missiles that crossed into Poland breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the reports were unbalanced, inaccurate as to the ownership of the missiles and other matters, discriminated against Russo and Slavic people, disturbing as they raised the prospect of nuclear war in which children would be harmed, and unfair to children. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the balance standard as the broadcaster had presented significant viewpoints on the issue and had made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy in the context of a developing story. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children’s Interests, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

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...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about an interview on Morning Report with Sue Grey, lawyer for the parents of a baby whose urgent heart surgery had been delayed due to the parents’ concerns regarding blood from donors vaccinated against COVID-19. The essence of the complaints was that the host did not listen to Grey, constantly interrupted her, did not allow her to answer the questions, and pushed his personal views. The Authority found the interview did not go beyond the level of robust scrutiny that could reasonably be expected in an interview with Grey on this subject, noting in particular that Grey was making claims contrary to public health advice, and was able to put forward key points in the course of the eight-minute interview. Therefore the broadcast overall did not result in any unfairness to Grey....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that it was a breach of broadcasting standards for an expert interviewee to suggest the anti-mask/anti-vaccination movement was behind bomb threats made to several New Zealand schools. The Authority found that while the issue of who was responsible constituted a controversial issue of public importance, the interview was clearly signalled as approaching the issue from a particular perspective, so the balance standard was not breached. It also found that anti-mask/anti-vaccination advocates are not groups to which the discrimination and denigration and fairness standards apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has accepted jurisdiction to consider a complaint under the privacy standard made by the Privacy Commissioner. The Authority found the Privacy Commissioner had standing to make the complaint under the Broadcasting Act 1989. It also found it is capable of considering the complaint on its merits and would not be subject to undue influence or bias as a result of the complainant’s status. Finally, it agreed the complaint raised some matters outside the scope of the complaints process and, in accordance with its usual procedures, such matters would not be considered. Accepted Jurisdiction...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an interview on Morning Report with Martin Sellner, the leader of an Austrian far-right group, was unbalanced or misleading. Interviewer Corin Dann questioned Mr Sellner on the donation he had received from the alleged Mosque attacker and Mr Sellner’s choice to give some of the money to Victim Support, a charity assisting victims of the Mosque attacks. In response to other questions, Mr Sellner also provided some comment regarding his ideologies. During the interview, Mr Dann questioned whether Mr Sellner had a role in radicalising the alleged attacker and whether Mr Sellner felt any responsibility for the attacks. The Authority found that the balance standard was not breached considering the clear approach of the broadcast, focussing on the perspective of Mr Sellner, the introduction prior to the interview and Mr Dann’s questioning of Mr Sellner....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two interviews on Morning Report, which explored the propriety of funding for a campaign to encourage Māori to register on the Māori electoral roll, breached the balance and accuracy standards. The complainant said the interviews with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, Chair of the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency (WOCA) which funded the campaign, and with Hon Shane Jones, who was asked to comment on the issue, displayed ‘anti-Māori bias’. Noting the broadcast incorrectly stated WOCA was a government agency, the complainant also said listeners would be left with an impression there was corruption taking place based on a false assumption. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as significant perspectives about the advertising campaign were presented in the broadcast and in other media within the period of current interest....

SummaryA report on Maori Housing was discussed on RNZ’s Morning Report on 12 January 1999. A range of differing views was expressed on the matter. Mr Stemson complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd about the accuracy of comments made by Hon Wyatt Creech (the Deputy Prime Minister) when he spoke about the accommodation supplement. Dealing with the complaint as one which alleged a lack of balance, RNZ said that there was no record of Mr Creech being interviewed. As the complaint seemed concerned with the adequacy of policy, RNZ suggested to Mr Stemson that he express his opinion directly to the Minister or his MP. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Mr Stemson referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....

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...

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...