Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the question ‘How can anyone trust anything that you say? ’ put to Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health, following the positive tests of two women who were released from managed isolation on compassionate grounds. Dr Bloomfield’s answers to the question (which was posed twice) were shown on-air. Viewers would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him. As a public health official he is reasonably subject to robust scrutiny, especially during a pandemic. The fairness standard was accordingly not breached and the remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-183 Decision No: 1996-184 Decision No: 1996-185 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by BOB ATKINSON of Nelson and EVAN DAVIES of Hamilton and MARIA DOVE of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-025 Decision No: 1998-026 Decision No: 1998-027 Dated the 12th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by A J DICKSON of Tauranga and PHILLIP DUNLOP of Pokeno and ROBIN MCMILLAN of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R M McLeod J Withers...

SummaryAccording to host John Banks, in his programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 31 July 1998 between 6. 00-9. 00am, New Zealand needed allies like the Americans to protect it from enemies like Japan. Other similar references were made to Japan and its people. Mrs Knight complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks should not have been broadcast. In her view, the only purpose of the comments was to engender negative feelings among New Zealanders about Japan. She considered they were personal views, which Mr Banks should have kept to himself. Mrs Knight asked for an explanation and apology. In its response, Radio Pacific emphasised that talkback was a forum in which a variety of views could be expressed, even those which were contentious and provocative. It suggested that those who objected to Mr Banks’ views should phone and have their say on air....

SummaryAn item on the programme 5. 30 with Jude, broadcast on TV One on 4 November 1998 at 5. 40 pm, featured a representative from a health products company discussing women’s health with the presenter. In particular, soy products, phytoestrogens, and commercial products containing them were discussed in relation to the relief they provided to women with menopausal symptoms. Mrs James complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that statements made in the item were inaccurate and unbalanced. She did not, she wrote, see any indication that the programme was an advertisement or advertorial, and she therefore assumed that it was classified as a documentary. TVNZ responded that the segment was "transparently advertorial in nature". It was paid for by the health products company, but TVNZ retained editorial control over it, the broadcaster said....

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

ComplaintBoxing: De la Hoya v Mosely – boxing – omission of action between rounds – misleading – distorted editingFindings(1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G19 – editorial discretion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Boxing: De la Hoya v Mosely, a world championship boxing bout between Oscar De la Hoya and Shane Mosely, was broadcast on TV3 on 18 June 2000 between 4. 00pm and 6. 00pm. John Reynolds complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the coverage was of a portion of the fight only, as the events and activities which took place between rounds were not screened, in favour of commercial breaks. Mr Reynolds said that this "integral" part of the match was deliberately omitted, and that this was misleading and unfair....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint Radio New Zealand’s news headlines regarding the government’s anticipated plans for replacement of the Interislander ferries breached the accuracy standard. The complainant said the headlines, stating the government’s plan was ‘reportedly to buy two smaller ships for $900 million, much more than the $551 million Labour’s paid’, were ‘mischievous’ noting the government’s intention to reduce costs, the ship cost component was implied to be ‘total project costs’ suggesting a substantial increase, and the comparisons of partial costs were ‘meaningless and speculation. ’ The Authority found the headlines were comment or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – follow-up to TV3 “special investigation” Let Us Spray– said that Ministry of Health had “finally admitted it tests positive for political contamination” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Ministry of Health had “finally admitted it tests positive for political contamination” – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Ministry of Health – not unfair to peer reviewer of study or to ESR – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator Special: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker Bryan Bruce gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether the complainant, who was a “surprise” witness at the retrial, had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccuracies relate to implication in the programme that the complainant gave misleading evidence – Authority not in a position to determine whether the programme was inaccurate in this respect – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed brief visual overview of New Zealand flags – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – complaint frivolous and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Items broadcast on Campbell Live on TV3 at 7pm on 22 and 23 September 2011, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag, which had been a topic of discussion during the Rugby World Cup....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b )(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item discussed several current events in relation to global warming – contained a report from Britain’s ITN television station on the effects global warming was having on penguins in Antarctica – allegedly inaccurate and unbalanced Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item’s introduction presented the ITN item as providing factual evidence on global warming – statement regarding percentage of sea ice reduction in Antarctica inaccurate – statement that only humans can change the fate of penguins not clearly distinguishable as commentary – contrary to guideline 5d – upheld No Order This note does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 12 December 2007, looked at several international current events relating to global warming....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – episode devoted to controversy about Meningococcal B vaccine and immunisation campaign – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – a range of significant views advanced about a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies and not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – taking into account the format of programme, panel member Ron Law treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The controversy about the Meningococcal B vaccine and the current immunisation campaign was dealt with during an entire episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 July 2005. The item included interviews undertaken in Norway at the laboratory that developed the vaccine on which the New Zealand vaccine was based....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – coverage of the Makara cemetery desecration – graphic beside the news presenter showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol – inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Action taken – sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 6 August 2004 dealt with the desecration of Jewish graves in Wellington. [2] The graphic beside the news presenter during the introduction to this item showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol. [3] There was no suggestion during the news broadcast, other than the graphic, that the anarchist movement was involved in this incident....

Complaint3 News – item about New Zealand First party convention – Winston Peters described as having "once again played the race card" – inaccurate – unjust and unfair – item lacked balance and impartiality FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate to state Mr Peters played the "race card" – no uphold Standard G3 – item acknowledged right of Mr Peters and his supporters to express their opinions – no uphold Standard G4 – Mr Peters not dealt with unjustly or unfairly – no uphold Standard G6 – item not lacking in balance, impartiality or fairness – no uphold Standard G7 – no deceptive programming practice – decline to determine Standard G13 – no uphold Standard G14 – no uphold Standard G19 – editing did not distort views – no uphold Standard G20 – views fairly presented – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Meaty – footage of Akon’s concert in Trinidad – Akon filmed simulating sexual intercourse on stage with a 14-year-old girl – allegedly in breach of law and order, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – accuracy standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no specific individual identified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster failed to adequately consider the interests of child viewers – item lacked an appropriate warning – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster failed to exercise sufficient care and discretion – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Meaty, broadcast on C4 at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Friday Night of Comedy – contained footage from programme episodes that had already screened – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – comedy promo not a factual programme to which the accuracy standard applies – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – promo was generic and promoted programme series, as opposed to specific upcoming episodes – promo did not deceive or disadvantage viewers as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Friday Night of Comedy highlighted multiple programmes that were scheduled to screen that evening, and contained footage from the different programme series. The promo was broadcast on TV One at about 6. 20pm on 24 August 2012....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of Mediawatch, which contained commentary on a recently released Media Council decision concerning an article about puberty blockers, breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found the programme was sufficiently balanced, noting its focus was on the Media Council’s decision (including its implications for journalists) and that it did not purport to be a balanced examination of the safety or reversibility of puberty blockers. It found alleged inaccuracies in the broadcast constituted comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. Taking into account the Media Council’s role as a public-facing organisation, the Authority noted it can reasonably expect its decisions to be subject to public scrutiny, and found the critique of its decision did not result in unfairness. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...