Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-099 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE ROWAN PARTNERSHIP of Wanganui Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an item on AM breached several standards including accuracy. The broadcast attributed several acts of violence against police, during the February–March 2022 protest and occupation of Parliament grounds, to protesters. The complainant stated there was no evidence the events occurred, and that there was no evidence the violence was caused by protesters. The complainant also submitted the broadcast implied a reporter was ‘manhandled’ on Parliament grounds when in fact she was on Lambton Quay. The Authority found the broadcast was not materially misleading and the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Unbreakable, which featured stories about New Zealanders with disabilities, including Golriz Ghahraman MP, was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority noted it is not unbalanced to include an MP in a story, and that as a human interest piece, alternative viewpoints were not required to be presented. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Sunday – previewed item on disputed territory of East Jerusalem – presenter stated, “Sunday travels to Israel to bring you Jew against Arab from a truly unique perspective” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was a fair summary of the situation featured in the programme – both sides were represented in the promo – did not reach threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard applies to individuals not groups – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – promo did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the current affairs programme Sunday was broadcast between 1....

...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Documentary entitled Michael Jackson's Mind looked at history of Michael Jackson's unconventional behaviour – behaviour analysed by psychiatrists and psychologists – comments sought from range of other people – programme used extracts from previous documentary Living with Michael Jackson – allegedly unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not controversial issue of public importance – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Authority unable to determine whether extracts of Martin Bashir documentary used in context – decline to determine – other comments by psychiatrist not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 30 May 2005, at 9. 30pm, TV2 broadcast a documentary entitled Michael Jackson's Mind....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiling the Destiny Church and its pastor – interviews with the pastor, former members of the Church, a university lecturer and the director of Cultwatch – allegedly unbalanced and unfair to the Destiny ChurchFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – sufficient opportunity given to the Church and its pastor to present its views on the controversial issues – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Church given opportunity to respond to issues raised – not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday shown on TV One at 7. 30pm on 3 October 2004 profiled the Destiny Church and its leader, Pastor Brian Tamaki. The segment gave background information about the church and its recent march to Parliament protesting the Civil Union Bill....

Complaint60 Minutes – interview with swimmer Trent Bray – allegations of steroid use – unfair to interviewee – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – swimmer given opportunity to tell his side of the story – not treated unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Swimmer Trent Bray, who had tested positive to a performance-enhancing drug, was interviewed on 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 26 March 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. In an emotional sequence, he denied the allegation. J B Meiklejohn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was inexcusable and unjustifiably insensitive to broadcast footage of the swimmer "incoherent in grief". In its response, TVNZ advised that the swimmer had not been coerced into participating in the interview, and had been aware of the scope of questions to be asked....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made remarks about his dislike for campervans and the people who use them – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host's comments were personal opinion not points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the programme – campervan owners not a section of the community to which guideline 6g applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Waitangi: What Really Happened – docu-drama about events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Waitangi: What Really Happened was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 6 February 2011. The programme was a docu-drama following the events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Overnight Talkback– during a discussion about gay marriage, the host described the complainant, a caller, as “incredibly rude” – host read out complainant’s fax and repeated the word “homophobic” but spelled out “faggot” – allegedly in breach of fairness and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s use of the word “homophobic” and spelling out of “faggot” did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Overnight Talkback, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 6 June 2012, the host and callers discussed the issue of gay marriage. The host spoke to a caller, “David from Queenstown”, whom he described as “incredibly rude”, before terminating the call....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on The Detail that discussed Auckland Council efforts to monitor and improve the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches. The complaint was that the item failed to present alternative views, or test or challenge the views presented by Auckland Council representatives. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of information on the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches, and the broadcast approached the issue from a particular perspective, not purporting to be a balanced examination of the adequacy of Auckland Council efforts. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on Waitangi Day events around New Zealand, including Bill English’s first Waitangi Day as Prime Minister and his phone call with US President Donald Trump. The item also featured comment on English’s attendance at Waitangi Day celebrations in Auckland, rather than at Waitangi. Comment was provided by Mr English, as well as political editor Patrick Gower, who said: ‘Waitangi Day celebrations will go on the road… away from Waitangi, away from the cauldron that is Te Tii Marae’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item reflected the Government’s desire to control the image of, and de-politicise, Waitangi Day. The Authority acknowledged the national significance of Waitangi Day, and the views of the complainant as to how it should be celebrated....

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....

A news bulletin on Newstalk ZB reported on the upcoming speaking tour of New Zealand by Posie Parker. The complainant considered the item’s portrayal of Parker (including through its tone and description of Parker as an ‘anti-trans rights activist’ and a ‘trans-exclusionary speaker’ rather than a ‘women’s rights campaigner’) was in breach of the balance, fairness, accuracy and discrimination and denigration broadcasting standards. The Authority found the balance standard did not apply as the item was a straightforward news report which did not ‘discuss’ a controversial issue of public importance and, in any event, listeners would have been aware of alternative viewpoints. The Authority also found, given Parker’s views, the descriptions ‘anti-trans rights activist’ and ‘trans-exclusionary speaker’ were fair and accurate. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Kate Hawkesby regarding Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield. Hawkesby made several comments about Dr Bloomfield, alleging he has underperformed in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Authority found the fairness standard was not breached as the comments were distinguishable as the opinion of the presenter and they did not result in Dr Bloomfield being treated unfairly. Given Dr Bloomfield’s high-profile position, he can reasonably expect to be the subject of robust commentary. Not Upheld: Fairness  ...