Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview between Magic Talk host Ryan Bridges and World Health Organisation Special Envoy Dr David Nabarro. The complainant argued the interview contained inaccurate information about Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 and mask wearing, and inaccurately suggested Dr Nabarro advocated New Zealand adopt Sweden’s approach. The Authority found the relevant statements were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. It also concluded they were not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context of the interview. The standards of good taste and decency, balance and fairness either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Midday Rural News segment on RNZ National, regarding a proposed solar panel development on a Waipara farm, breached the accuracy and balance standards. It found the points raised by the complainant as being inaccurate or misleading were either not misleading or were not materially misleading, as they were unlikely to affect the audience’s understanding of the report as a whole. In relation to the balance standard, the Authority found the brief broadcast, which was focused on the farmer’s perspective on the installation of the proposed development on his farm, did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance as required for the standard to apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Paakiwaha, host Willie Jackson interviewed the Head of News and Current Affairs at Māori Television about the recent resignation of senior staff, among other things. Mihingarangi Forbes and Annabelle Lee, two of the individuals referred to, complained that the interview was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority upheld aspects of the accuracy complaint, as Mr Jackson claimed Ms Forbes leaked information to media (which was also unfair) and declined an invitation to appear on the programme, which was inaccurate. The Authority also found the item was unfair to Ms Forbes, Ms Lee and another former staff member as the discussion reflected negatively on their professional ability and they were not given a timely and relevant opportunity to respond or give comment....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – news item referring to previous evening's TV3 programme entitled Let Us Spray – discussed a serum study investigating exposure to dioxins among residents of Paritutu – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6Standard 5 (accuracy) – three inaccurate statements – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – unfair to ESR – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to ESR $3,000 Section 16(4) – costs to the Crown $2,500This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on The Project that discussed whether bystanders should step in if they see parents treating their children in a way they do not agree with. At the beginning of the segment the presenters described an incident in which a father (the complainant) allegedly disciplined his son by denying him afternoon tea. Another parent reported this to Oranga Tamariki, who later found no cause for action and dismissed the complaint. The complainant argued the segment omitted important details about the incident, and was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority acknowledged the significant effect these events have had on the complainant and his family....

SummaryAccording to host John Banks, in his programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 31 July 1998 between 6. 00-9. 00am, New Zealand needed allies like the Americans to protect it from enemies like Japan. Other similar references were made to Japan and its people. Mrs Knight complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks should not have been broadcast. In her view, the only purpose of the comments was to engender negative feelings among New Zealanders about Japan. She considered they were personal views, which Mr Banks should have kept to himself. Mrs Knight asked for an explanation and apology. In its response, Radio Pacific emphasised that talkback was a forum in which a variety of views could be expressed, even those which were contentious and provocative. It suggested that those who objected to Mr Banks’ views should phone and have their say on air....

SummaryAn item on the programme 5. 30 with Jude, broadcast on TV One on 4 November 1998 at 5. 40 pm, featured a representative from a health products company discussing women’s health with the presenter. In particular, soy products, phytoestrogens, and commercial products containing them were discussed in relation to the relief they provided to women with menopausal symptoms. Mrs James complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that statements made in the item were inaccurate and unbalanced. She did not, she wrote, see any indication that the programme was an advertisement or advertorial, and she therefore assumed that it was classified as a documentary. TVNZ responded that the segment was "transparently advertorial in nature". It was paid for by the health products company, but TVNZ retained editorial control over it, the broadcaster said....

Summary An item on Holmes featured the Alpha Club which, it reported, represented itself as a travel club. The item suggested the club was involved in pyramid selling activities, and included amateur footage of a club meeting, a woman encouraging another person to join the club, and interviews with people who had attended meetings. An Auckland barrister expressed an opinion that he was in "no doubt" that the activities amounted to pyramid selling. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 May 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. Mr Price complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was inaccurate, unbalanced, biased and misleading, and that he had suffered financial loss as a result. TVNZ responded that the barrister interviewed was a recognised expert in the field of consumer law....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera trial of video game retailers – actors aged 16, 14 and 12 years attempted to buy R18 video game – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers saw the hidden camera footage – no evidence to suggest item was inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 29 June 2010, the presenter summarised the results of a hidden camera trial in which actors aged 16, 14 and 12 years attempted to buy a video game which had an R18 classification. A number of retailers refused sale without proof of age, while others proceeded with the sale and swiped the actors’ eftpos cards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six taxi companies in Auckland – noted that driver of Green Cab had looked down at something six times during the journey – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster was entitled to edit footage – unclear what the driver was looking at – Target legitimately commented that he demonstrated lapses in concentration and took his eyes off the road – programme broadcast fair reflection of Green Cabs’ response – not unfair – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – concerns better dealt with under fairness – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7....

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Target – test of mechanics attending breakdown and repairing a car’s cooling system – use of hidden camera – complainant most expensive repairer – insufficient explanation of reason for costs given – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandards 4, 5, and 6 – consumer advocacy programme – complaint essentially that complainant not dealt with fairly – subsumed under Standard 6 – as with all other participants one of two manufactured faults not found – services otherwise good – adequate explanation given of invoice – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The hidden camera segment on Target on 22 September 2002 featured mechanics called to a simulated breakdown situation. The car in question had two manufactured faults. The four companies selected were rated according to their performance at the breakdown, the work on the repair, and their charges....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the murder of Deidre Tobin by her partner Craig Jackson – Mr Jackson found not guilty by reason of insanity – interviewed Ms Tobin’s family and friends plus two detectives who believed Mr Jackson was faking his insanity – allegedly in breach of law and order, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – Authority unable to determine the position of the Crown solicitor – overall programme was balanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Jackson, Dr Simpson or the Tobin family – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item entitled “Insanely Jealous?...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item describing shooting down in Iraq of US military helicopter by “enemy fire” – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – balance provided in period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate in this context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item which described the shooting down in Iraq of a US military helicopter by “enemy fire” was broadcast on One News on 3 January 2004 at 6. 00pm. Complaint [2] Simon Delahunt complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that describing Iraqis as the “enemy” was unbalanced and inaccurate. In his view, the use of this: … subjective, generic term forg[ed] an identification between the New Zealand viewer and the occupier of Iraq....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Larry Williams Drive Show – host interviewed director of the Middle East Forum about his concerns with the growing Muslim population in Europe – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on interviewee’s views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments conveyed interviewee’s personal opinion – no discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – interview would not have alarmed or…...

ComplaintOur People Our Century: "In the Family Way" – inaccurate, sexist statements – women portrayed as victims, men as violent abusers FindingsG1 – not inaccurate – no uphold G4 – not unfair – no uphold G6 – not relevant – balance not required in social history – no uphold G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The first episode of the documentary series Our People Our Century was broadcast on TV One on 7 February 2000 at 8. 30pm. It was entitled "In the Family Way" and looked at family life in New Zealand through the experiences of three different families. Bruce Tichbon complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme made a number of inaccurate sexist statements in relation to men, and unfairly and inaccurately portrayed women as victims and men as violent abusers....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Air New Zealand planned to be the first airline to use biofuels on commercial flights – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was ambiguous whether using biofuels would decrease carbon dioxide emissions from planes – upholding the accuracy complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on TV One on 5 June 2008, reported on the announcement by Air New Zealand that it hoped to be the first airline to use biofuels on commercial flights. [2] It was reported that Air New Zealand planes pumped around three-and-a-half million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussing possible organised crime involvement in the black market tobacco trade – interviewed tobacco growers – one interviewee stated that he was no longer growing tobacco, but aerial footage of his property showed that he was – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item inaccurate, but not significant in the context of the item overall – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the complainant or to another interviewee – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item on Māori TV’s bid for the free-to-air broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup – included satirical sketch about what Māori TV’s coverage would look like – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – legitimate satire – lacked necessary invective to cross threshold for denigration of Māori as a section of the community – Māori TV not a section of the community – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Māori TV treated fairly – Pita Shaples and Julian Wilcox treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item was satire – did not “discuss” a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did…...