Search Rapua

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-104:Armitage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-104 PDF313. 81 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-011:Town and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-011 PDF499. 97 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-138:Leckey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-138 PDF864. 85 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-058:Shepherd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-058 PDF323. 74 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-013:Robertson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-013 PDF...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-039:Thai Community and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-039 PDF...

Complaint Holmes – series of items on the "brain drain" – Richard Poole – newspaper advertisement – Business Roundtable backing – unbalanced – news source lacked integrity FindingsStandard G6 – items lacked balance – broadcaster not impartial – Poole’s integrity not forcefully challenged – uphold Standard G15 – Poole an "information source" as required by standard – broadcaster failed to ascertain adequately his integrity/reliability – uphold OrdersBroadcast of statement$2,000 costs to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items broadcast on the Holmes show on TV One on 4, 5 and 6 October 2000 dealt with a perceived "brain drain" whereby young, educated New Zealanders were allegedly leaving New Zealand permanently for better jobs and an enhanced lifestyle overseas. Holmes is broadcast between 7. 00pm and 7. 30pm on weekdays....

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about Tauranga surgeon Dr Ian Breeze found guilty of professional misconduct – item described bowel operation which resulted in death of patient as “botched” – patient’s wife interviewed – relatives of other patients interviewed – allegedly breached good taste and decency – allegedly inaccurate, unfair, unbalancedFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “botched” is vernacular – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – matters raised by complainant not required for balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – matters raised by complainant not required for fairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tauranga surgeon Ian Breeze was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 2 December 2003....

Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 15 December 1997 focussed on two teenage girls whose mother had died, owing about $2,000 to Adelphi Finance. The broadcast related how the girls’ father had moved in to care for them and how, shortly after, furniture in their house had been repossessed on behalf of that company. Adelphi Finance Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was factually inaccurate, distorted the actual events, was unbalanced and partial, and presented a misleading impression of both the complainant and the circumstances of the repossession. TVNZ responded that the complainant was given every opportunity to present its side and to have it included in the item. Further, it noted that a studio summation of the complainant’s case was included at the end of the broadcast....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-081 Dated the 26th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AUCKLAND TROTTING CLUB (Inc) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

ComplaintHolmes – young people mimicking professional wrestling – impressionable people might copy – irresponsible itemFindingsStandard G12 – extensive warnings – no uphold Standard V6 – cautionary tale – appropriate warnings – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item discussing a social problem in the United States involving young people mimicking professional wrestling stunts they saw on television was broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 19 April 2001. John and Barbara Maltby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that impressionable young people in New Zealand might copy the graphic detail shown in the item. They considered that TVNZ had been irresponsible in screening the item. In response, TVNZ noted that the item had been preceded by a lengthy warning and followed by a statement from the presenter urging young people not to follow the example set by some American youth....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 95/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLAN E WEBB of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-150 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LIEUTENANT COMMANDER B I FOTHERINGHAM of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...