Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 87/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LESLIE GEE of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld complaints alleging a report regarding vaccination decreasing chances of COVID-19 infection on 1 News was inaccurate and misleading. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy of the statements about transmission rates. Use of the terms ‘fully immune’ and ‘full immunity’ were not misleading in the context of the broadcast. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand documentary: “What’s Really in our Food” – discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme fairly presented significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to persons or organisations taking part or referred to in the programme – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled “What’s Really in our Food” was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 13 September 2007. The programme discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview about legislation change to introduce paying the minimum wage to disabled people – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Principle 4 (balance) – presenter adopted aggressive manner with two interviewees – prevented interviewees from presenting significant viewpoints to listeners – listeners deprived of important information on controversial issue under discussion – unbalanced – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – one aspect of fairness complaint subsumed into consideration of Principle 4 – programme not unfair to Minister for Disability Issues – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – host discussed recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai – made various comments about Muslims and terrorism – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – programme was an opinion piece – lacked the necessary invective to cross the threshold for denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues - viewpoints) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Muslim people – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eye to Eye – host asked his guests whether the Labour or Māori Party candidate would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election – did not mention a third candidate for the electorate – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Eye to Eye, broadcast on TV One at 9. 30am on 5 February 2005, the host asked his two female guests whether Dover Samuels (Labour Party) or Hone Harawira (Māori Party) would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election....

ComplaintElection programme – Labour Party advertisement – Prime Minister seen with New Zealanders in UN Peacekeeping force in East Timor – her presence implied support for East Timor – incorrect in light of New Zealand’s historical position Findings Standard 5 and Guideline 5b – item focused in part on transition to independence – not inaccurate – not misleading – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party was screened on TV One at about 7. 00pm on 2 July 2002. Among the visuals the Prime Minister was shown visiting the New Zealanders who were part of the UN Peacekeeping force in East Timor. [2] Marcel Spencer complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the advertisement was misleading in that it suggested New Zealand’s support for East Timor’s independence....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – four items reporting special investigation into Ministry of Social Development’s “Community Max” projects questioned how millions of dollars had been spent – reporter visited sites of six projects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on the issue within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – very small number of minor points had the potential to be misleading – however in the context of four items which legitimately questioned government spending upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – MSD should expect that as a government Ministry it is subject to scrutiny…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday with Chris Laidlaw – host interviewed sociologist about anti-Semitic fringe groups in New Zealand that were seeking to deny or downplay the extent of the Holocaust – interviewee made statements about an individual who he said was a Holocaust denier – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a factual programme - interviewee's statements distinguishable as analysis – exempt from accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a segment called "Ideas" on Sunday with Chris Laidlaw, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on the morning of 31 May 2009, the host interviewed a sociologist, Dr Scott Hamilton, about anti-Semitic fringe groups in New Zealand that were seeking to deny or downplay the gravity of the Holocaust....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with woman who was launching a brand of cosmetics made from natural ingredients – contained a number of statements about the chemicals contained in mainstream cosmetics, including that most contained parabens – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee was not presented as an expert – viewers would have understood that her comments were opinion and not statements of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on an incident at Fairfield College in which a group of teenage girls were admitted to hospital after taking drugs – included summary of problems previously experienced at Fairfield College – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – in any event, alternative viewpoints were presented and representatives from Fairfield College were invited to appear on the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate and did not create a misleading impression about the problems faced at Fairfield College – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Fairfield College was provided with a reasonable opportunity to comment and its response was adequately conveyed in the broadcast – Fairfield College was treated fairly – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News: Firstline – interview with Ruth Money from Sensible Sentencing Trust regarding a proposed amendment to the Parole Act 2002 – Ms Money expressed her view that the amendment “did not go far enough” and that parole hearings should be abolished altogether – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Ms Money’s statements amounted to comment and opinion and were therefore exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – concerns about misleading impression regarding parole board hearing process adequately addressed under controversial issues standard…...

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....

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a statement by TVNZ’s Seven Sharp reporter that a film was set ‘amid a nationwide confiscation of Māori land’ during an interview with actor Temuera Morrison. The complainant alleged confiscations were not nationwide, and that Māori land dispossession can be attributed in part to legitimate land sales to the Crown. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material in the context of a segment focusing on Morrison’s acting career and promotion of a film, and that, in any case, it was not misleading to refer to ‘nationwide confiscation’ considering the extent of contested Māori land dispossession which occurred in the relevant period. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-015:Dunckley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-015 PDF93. 26 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item looked at the disputed territory of East Jerusalem – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – both sides given adequate opportunity to explain their point of view – broadcaster provided viewers with the significant viewpoints required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – UNICEF representative’s comments were opinion – Mr Kuttner provided his opinion on evictions and explained why barriers and guards were needed – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Kuttner given opportunity to provide his point of view on the issues discussed – dealt with fairly by broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1/95 Dated the 24th day of January 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DENNIS FRANK of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item examining the firearms licensing system and whether it was “too easy to get your licence” – showed hidden camera footage of volunteers taking firearms safety test – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – majority considers item failed to properly explain the place of the firearms safety test within the entire licensing scheme – viewers deprived of a significant perspective on whether it was too easy to obtain a firearms licence in New Zealand – majority uphold Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item did not denigrate or treat MSC instructors unfairly – licensed firearms-holders not a “section of the community” as envisaged by the guideline – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....