Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 20/94 Dated the 28th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C M KEMPSON of Waikanae Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-060 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that the host of Breakfast had been "complicit in facilitating and allowing disparaging and racist remarks" to be made about Māori during an interview with child advocate Christine Rankin about the high rate of child abuse in New Zealand. The complainant said the host's "grossly offensive" questions had created the impression that only Māori abuse and kill their children, breaching standards of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Ms Rankin’s comments were not intended to disparage Māori but to call "for action on child abuse among Māori who are significantly over-represented in child abuse statistics". She had clearly stated that it was not just Māori who were abusing their children. The broadcaster said the host's questions had forced Ms Rankin to balance her comments....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an illegal advertising campaign for Goji Juice – product was being marketed to the Tongan community as being a cure for numerous diseases – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue was the marketing of Goji Juice – broadcaster not required to seek comment from manufacturer or from people who endorsed the product – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not exhaust every alternative legitimate way of obtaining Namoe Sau’s comment before arranging door-stepping interview (guideline 6b) – used deception to obtain her comment without making sufficient attempts to obtain the material by other means (guideline 6c) – broadcaster treated Ms Sau unfairly – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Dragon’s Den – contestant said that ACC paid $68 million per year for people to hang out washing for people who were unable to do it themselves – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – not a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Dragon’s Den was a series in which would-be entrepreneurs pitched their business ideas to five successful business people in the hopes that they might invest. In the episode broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 19 October 2006, one of the contestants said: The ACC spends $68 million a year on helping people hang out their washing alone – I know, it’s a staggering amount. . ....

Summary District Court Judge Martin Beattie was acquitted on 1 August 1997 on a number of dishonesty charges after a jury trial. It was a high-profile case. On 27 July 1998, a news item revealed the contents of a High Court ruling made before the trial in which the judge had ruled inadmissible a report prepared by a QC at the request of the Chief District Court Judge in the early stages of the investigation. The item reported that the judgment disclosed the QC’s opinion that Judge Beattie was guilty of fraud. Mr Clayton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the QC’s opinion about the judge’s behaviour was "utterly irrelevant", and the disclosure not only breached broadcasting standards, but also invaded Judge Beattie’s privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News ­– item on Big Wednesday Lotto draw – presenter stated that ticket holders had a one in 2. 7 million chance of winning – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item technically inaccurate – upholding the complaint would place an unjustified limitation on the broadcaster’s freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item, broadcast at 6pm on Wednesday 10 June 2009, reported on a Lotto “Big Wednesday” draw that had jackpotted to twenty million dollars. The presenter introduced the item by saying: In just over an hour, some lucky punter could be twenty million dollars richer in what would be the country’s largest ever Lotto win. Big Wednesday’s jackpotted to include twenty million dollars cash, there’s only a one in 2....

Complaint 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson – naturopath promoted soy products as being efficacious for menopausal women – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsAdvertising programme within the meaning of s. 2 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and therefore not within the Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During an item on 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson broadcast on TV One on 4 July 2000, a guest promoted the use of Blackmore’s soy products as being healthy and offering relief against menopausal symptoms. A second 5 o’clock with Jude Dobson programme, broadcast on 6 July referred to a soy-based product. Richard James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programmes were deceiving to viewers as they were actually a commercial promotion, and that it was inaccurate to claim that soy products had a palliative effect on menopausal symptoms....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on the new Emissions Trading Scheme reported that “farmers may have to fork out an extra $3000 a year in pollution taxes by the year 2030” and that “agriculture is our biggest polluter” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – acceptable shorthand for communicating a scientific concept to the audience – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Wednesday 18 November 2009, discussed the Government’s new Emissions Trading Scheme. The news presenter introduced the item by saying: Farmers may have to fork out an extra $3000 a year in pollution taxes by the year 2030. The Prime Minister says the Agricultural Sector must pay its share under the Emissions Trading Scheme....

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

SummaryPromos for Catherine the Great were shown prior to its broadcast on 7 February 1999 beginning at 8. 30pm. The promos contained some nudity and sex scenes, as did the programme itself. Boyd Henderson of Oxford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority, that the sex scenes in the trailers and the programme itself breached the good taste and decency standard. As a general observation, he also complained that the broadcaster failed to provide warnings as to the explicit content of programmes and promos. Many New Zealanders, he said, were like him and objected to watching such material. As TVNZ failed to respond to Mr Henderson’s complaint, he referred it to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – promos for the programme contained footage not used in the actual broadcast – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – person alleged to have been treated unfairly did not take part in and was not referred to in the item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skin Doctors – footage of woman undergoing breast augmentation surgery and her consultations with her plastic surgeon – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – programme disclosed private facts about complainant – disclosure highly offensive – complainant did not give informed consent – no public interest – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $5,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $10,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Parekura Horomia – comments made during filming break – broadcast of private conversation – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – Privacy Principle (iii) – intentional interference with Mr Horomia's interest in solitude or seclusion – offensive – no consent – insufficient public interest – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview with the Minister of Maori Affairs designate, Parekura Horomia, was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 24 July 2000. In an addendum to the interview, viewers heard a recording of comments made by Mr Horomia during a filming break about his distrust of the media. Jo Crowley complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached Mr Horomia's privacy....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-24 PDF82. 96 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Complaint During a Close Up item about the "naming and shaming" of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated but she was "unmasked" and named later in the item. David and Heather Green objected to the woman's treatment. They said the item had imposed an extra penalty over and above that imposed in the courtroom, and was unfair....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Real Crime: The Investigator – programme analysed the conviction of a man for murdering his wife – disclosed the names and showed photographs of the man’s daughters – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – programme did not disclose any private facts – information already in the public realm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Real Crime: The Investigator was broadcast on TV One at 9. 30pm on 8 July 2009. The investigator, Bryan Bruce, took an in-depth look at the case of a man who was convicted of murdering his wife in 2001. [2] During the programme, the first names of the man’s daughters were disclosed and a photograph of the man and his two daughters was displayed by the investigator on his evidence board....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters had several light-hearted discussions about the Pope – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – presenters did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenters’ comments distinguishable from points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not denigrate the Pope or Catholics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7am on Tuesday 26 February 2008, the presenters, Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell, and the newsreader, Peter Williams, had a jovial discussion about the current Pope and what he had been doing recently....