Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reference to President George W Bush “leading the free world” – allegedly unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – no balancing comment required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any persons taking part or referred to – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 22 October 2004 dealt with a back-dated pay rise which had been given to Members of Parliament in New Zealand. Towards the end of the segment, the reporter compared the salary of the Prime Minister of New Zealand with that of other world leaders, including President George W. Bush of the United States....

ComplaintAssignment Special – investigation of scampi fishing industry – allegations of corruption – complainants’ application for production of documents and affidavits FindingsApplication Order made under s. 12 OrderOrder made for broadcaster to produce certain affidavits to Authority This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION The Background [1] Claims made in Parliament and by some of the participants in the scampi fishery that the Ministry of Fisheries was corrupt and condoned corruption in the scampi industry were investigated in an Assignment Special. The programme was broadcast on TV One between 8. 30–10. 00pm on 29 October 2002. [2] Simunovich Fisheries Ltd and two of its directors, Peter Simunovich and Vaughan Wilkinson, participants in the scampi fishing industry, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards relating to balance, accuracy and fairness....

ComplaintNew Zealand Festival: Virginity – language – "did you fuck him? " – offensive FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – not gratuitous – acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The programme New Zealand Festival: Virginity was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 19 February 2001. One of the seven women who spoke of their first sexual experiences reported that she was later asked by an acquaintance, "did you fuck him? " Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "fuck" was grossly offensive. He argued that the classification of a programme as AO and the inclusion of a warning did not excuse the broadcaster from the requirement to maintain standards of good taste and decency....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "To Age or Not to Age" – misleading – adverse health outcomes possible – unbalanced – broadcaster (TVNZ) upheld balance complaint – not impartial – broadcaster investigating commissioning possible documentary on dieting and ageing in 2002 – action taken insufficient FindingsImportant information contained in programme – action taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "To Age or Not to Age" was the title of the documentary broadcast by TV One at 8. 30pm on 30 July 2001 in the weekly documentary time slot. Using a number of medical criteria, the programme set out to measure the effectiveness of the approaches promoted by Leslie Kenton for staying healthy and feeling younger....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a 1 News at Midday item about the United States presidential election lacked balance because it included clips of Joe Biden supporters and Biden’s campaign, but not Donald Trump supporters or the Trump campaign. The US election, while it could be considered a controversial issue of public importance for the purposes of the balance standard, was an issue that was widely covered by the media, including by TVNZ. Balance is not achieved by a ‘stopwatch’ meaning broadcasters are not required to give equal time to alternative viewpoints. The lack of emphasis on Trump supporters and the Trump campaign in this particular item would not have left viewers uninformed and did not breach the balance standard, given the widespread coverage available including of Mr Trump’s campaign and supporters. Not Upheld: Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 34/94 Decision No: 35/94 Dated the 2nd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by JOHN EARNSHAW of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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 under the accuracy standard about a 1News report on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged the broadcast’s framing of the Treaty principles as partnership, participation, and protection (the Three Ps) was ‘incomplete and confused’, and describing the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’ erroneously suggested the Bill was rewriting the Treaty principles. The broadcast stated, ‘there are no principles that have been expressly defined or set out in law’ and recited the Three Ps as the ‘current main three principles’. In the context of the segment, the reporter’s comments were unlikely to mislead viewers, and any potential harm caused was not at a level justifying intervention. Additionally, it was not misleading, in the context, to refer to the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 117/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 21/95 Dated the 12th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOANNE DACZO of Pirongia Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 73/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 150/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J M STEVENSON of Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News covered the quarrying of a Dunedin landmark, Saddle Hill, and featured interviews with three people opposed to the quarrying. The reporter stated that quarry owner Calvin Fisher did not respond to his request for an interview, although an offer had been made to ‘replace the hill once the rock has been taken away’. TVNZ upheld Mr Fisher’s complaint, finding that insufficient attempts were made to contact Mr Fisher and the reporter unfairly represented that he was not willing to comment. TVNZ apologised in writing to Mr Fisher, removed the story from its website and discussed the upheld complaint with the reporter and management. However the Authority upheld Mr Fisher’s complaint that this action was insufficient to remedy the breach....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item focused on couple who received verbal estimate for plumbing work that was significantly less than the final bill – included interview with the couple and the plumber –advised viewers on how to avoid unanticipated costs by obtaining written quotes – allegedly unfair to plumber FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – plumber provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his viewpoint was adequately reflected in the item – item did not create unfairly negative representation of plumber’s character or conduct – high level of public interest in advice provided to tradespeople and consumers – plumber treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....