Search Rapua

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...

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....

ComplaintHolmes – item regarding registration of Kopukairoa as wāhi tapu – examined the concerns of four landowners affected by the registration – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 4 – failed to present range of views – unbalanced – uphold Standard 5 – factual inaccuracies – partial – uphold Standard 6 – Iwi dealt with unfairly – uphold OrderBroadcast of statementPublish statement in Bay of Plenty Times This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The concern of four Pakeha landowners on Kopukairoa, because of the registration of the mountain in the Bay of Plenty as wāhi tapu, was dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 18 November 2002. The item included interviews with the four landowners and Mr Toni Paraire who, it was said, represented the views of the local Māori who registered the wāhi tapu....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – light-hearted commentary on a TV3 presenter’s telephone call to Wellington High Court about Justice Ron Young who was hearing TV3’s appeal against some decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Holmes presenter (Paul Holmes) said that TV3’s presenter (John Campbell) had been getting it “up the chutney” at the appeal hearing – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldObservation When complaint referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) in which there is doubt whether broadcaster has had the opportunity to investigate the complaint, the Authority will clarify processes with the broadcaster before formal action initiatedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on art piece commissioned for Venice Biennale at cost of $500,000 in public money – interview with Peter Biggs of Creative New Zealand – allegedly unfair to Mr Biggs and misleading/inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – not unbalanced – Mr Biggs was able to present his view – not upheld Standard 5 – item did not suggest that braying toilet was the work to be exhibited – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – Mr Biggs not treated unfairly – as a seasoned media commentator he was able to get his point across – not upheld Standard 8 – not relevant – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-072:Minister of Health (Hon Simon Upton) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-072 PDF489. 34 KB...

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

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with witness – anti-police – unbalanced – partial – prejudice to fair hearing FindingsStandard G6 – eyewitness account necessarily focused on one perspective – balance achieved over time – no uphold Standard G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A witness to the shooting of a young man by a policeman in Waitara was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on 17 July 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The item recorded that there was some discrepancy between what the eyewitness had told the police immediately after the incident and his statement to a private investigator some days later. Martyn Stewart complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was an "emotive display of pure sensationalism" which would have incited the public to be biased against the police....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item on New Zealand’s poor record of child abuse – recited list of recent cases of abuse and murder – presenter referred to “father” as perpetrator – allegedly inaccurate and unbalanced Findings Principle 4 (balance) – balance aspect of complaint more appropriately dealt with under Principle 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact rather than particular perspective or opinion – not upheld Principle 5 (accuracy) – item later clarified that perpetrators often male figure other than natural father – overall item not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 30 June 2004, concerned New Zealand’s record of child murder and abuse....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-042:McNair and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-042 PDF331. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-015:Perry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-015 PDF1008. 74 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-044:Hansen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-044 PDF347. 71 KB...

Summary The forthcoming Parole Board hearing for Paul Dally was dealt with during an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One beginning at 7. 00pm on 18 August 1999. Mr Dally had pleaded guilty to the murder of 13 year-old Karla Cardno in 1989, and the item included an interview with Mr Mark Middleton, Karla’s stepfather. In response to some questions as to why he had asked the Parole Board to release Mr Dally, Mr Middleton said that it provided the opportunity for him and his friends to "take him". R J Healing complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reporter’s questions were insensitive, and had encouraged a distressed man into making statements he might later regret. TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint as a breach of the standards relating either to taste or fairness....

ComplaintHolmes – research findings on third generation contraceptive pill – danger to women of blood clotting – presenter told users to throw their pills away – inaccurate – unbalanced – caused unnecessary panic, alarm FindingsStandard G1 – no inaccuracy – no upholdStandard G6 – key issues isolated – opportunity for response given – majority no upholdStandard G16 – health message presented – focus on individual stories – style of programme – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The release of research findings detailing the risks to women of taking the third generation contraceptive pill was the topic of a Holmes item broadcast on 16 June between 7. 00-7. 30pm. The presenter suggested that those who were taking several named varieties of the pills should throw them out....

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.…...

ComplaintHolmes – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – women able to be identified – breach of women’s privacy FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Complaints of FL, Mr Elliott and Mr Herrmann – upheld; Ms MacDonald’s complaint – one aspect upheld by broadcaster; one aspect subsumed under Standard G4 Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $5,000 compensation to each of the women whose privacy was breached(3) $2,500 costs to the Crown Cross-reference: 2002-071–072 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 May 2001 reported on sensitive information about two women which had been found on a second-hand computer hard drive. Excerpts from the interviews with the two women were included in the broadcast. [2] FL, one of the women concerned, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – host referred to the WestpacTrust Stadium as the "cake tin" – derogatory phrase – offensive FindingsSection 11(b) – no issue of broadcasting standards raised by this complaint – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The WestpacTrust Stadium in Wellington was referred to as the "cake tin" by the host (Susan Wood) in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 7 February 2003. [2] John McLellan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reference was "derogatory". [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr McLellan referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. [4] In its response to the Authority, TVNZ argued that the matter did not raise an issue of broadcasting standards....