RNZ has cancelled the broadcast of a podcast episode featuring disgraced ex-minister Kiritapu Allan, saying it does not meet its standards of impartiality.
But the executive producer of It’s Personal with Anika Moa has criticised the move and questioned RNZ’s own fairness.
The public service broadcaster had promoted Allan’s appearance on the podcast’s second season but decided not to air the episode following an “editorial check”.
In a statement, a spokesperson said RNZ’s editorial policy applied not only to staff but to all contractors.
“While It’s Personal with Anika Moa is an entertainment, personality-driven interview show, rather than news or current affairs, the topics covered in the interview included recent news events and they needed further context,” the statement said.
“While highly respecting the right of individuals to express their opinion, we found that given the subject matter of the interview, the episode did not meet our editorial policy with regards to impartiality.”
The spokesperson said RNZ carried out editorial checks across its journalism and content and often made the decision to not publish material.
“RNZ has a high level of credibility and trust among its audience, we will continue to guard this. We remain very supportive of the podcast series and the stories and people it brings to audiences.”
‘It’s called It’s Personal, not It’s Impartial’
Moa, a musician and broadcaster known for her candour, has been contacted for comment.
The podcast series is produced by RNZ in partnership with award-winning TV company Rogue Productions.
In a statement, Rogue Productions executive producer Charlotte Purdy pushed back on RNZ’s decision to pull the episode.
“Anika is not a journalist and she took a compassionate approach to Kiri’s very public and well-covered breakdown last year.
“The show’s format is an intimate heart-to-heart. It’s called ‘It’s Personal’, not ‘It’s Impartial’. Actually, I question how impartial RNZ is being with this decision.”
RNZ’s podcast department directed all questions to RNZ’s communications team.
She returned a breath test over the criminal limit of 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, but a subsequent evidential test gave a reading of 335mcg - still above the legal limit, but considered an infringement offence.