Search Rapua

Tapu Misa declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about footage on a 1 News item of a person’s negative reaction after receiving a COVID-19 nasal swab. The Authority acknowledged the high public value and education in news reporting about COVID-19 testing and found the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence. The law and order, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Balance, Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 7/94 Dated the 21st day of February 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BUSINESS INNOVATION GROUP of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about the experience of a man who purchased the “Hire A Hubby” franchise for the suburb of Greenlane in Auckland – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate or misleading – Target mentioned that there had been a settlement – the settlement was not the focus of the item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness arguments relied on the programme being misleading – FBL was treated fairly and given a fair opportunity to comment – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 29 April 2008, covered the story of Colin Hinds and his experience as a Hire A Hubby franchisee....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two items about the disappearance of a six-year-old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies in either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – 5 December broadcast not unfair to mother of six-year-old boy – complainant did not specify any person in the 20 December broadcast who was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-2035 PDF1. 53 MBComplaint under s....

Complaint Choppers – rescue series – intrusion into grief – breach of privacy – complainant said consent to broadcast withheld FindingsPrivacy – conflict as to whether consent given – decline to determine Standard 5 – item not news, current affairs or documentary – no uphold Standard 6 – majority – footage indistinct and fleeting – similar to that which would be used in news item – informational content – no uphold – minority – complainant identifiable and clearly in shock – friend obscured – unfair This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Choppers followed the activities of a helicopter rescue service. The rescue of a young woman who had fallen down a cliff was shown in the episode broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV2 on 8 August 2002. [2] Christine Diamond, the woman rescued, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – talkback – comment about interest rates – host Mark Bennett – inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 6 – reference to economy or chronology – two possible interpretations – majority – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryWhen referring to the third recent interest rate cut in Australia, a talkback host on Radio Pacific (Mark Bennett) expressed his disgust that rates in New Zealand, until recently, had gone up. He considered that the Reserve Bank Governor’s concern about inflation had meant that New Zealand was out of step with Australia, America and Japan. The comments were made at about 6. 15pm on 21 March 2001. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand complained to The RadioWorks New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, that, as there had been no change to the interest rate between July 2000 and March 2001, the comment was inaccurate....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented with reference to ACT MP David Garrett, “He is a complete waster....

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…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-063:Milnes and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-063 PDF445. 85 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – investigated one couple’s practice of grazing cattle along the banks of the Pahaoa River in the Wairarapa – interviewed concerned neighbour, environmental scientist, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and spokesman for Federated Farmers – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – story focused on one couple – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the Riddells were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the story – reporter’s approach unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – legal costs to the complainant $1,670 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 4 February 2009, the host introduced a story, saying: Let’s. . ....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at a couple running the One World Foundation who had been banned from Samoa because of allegations regarding the legitimacy of their work – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainants were treated fairly – chosen interview excerpts fairly represented the complainants’ position – 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 10 March 2008, reported that “a New Zealand-based couple’s been banned from Samoa for life after being accused of taking freebies in the name of charity”....

Tapu Misa declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tagata Pasifika– item reported on the Government’s Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (accuracy) – item would not have misled viewers – item did not purport to be an in depth discussion of the scheme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tagata Pasifika broadcast at 11. 05pm on 3 May 2007, reported on the announcement of the New Zealand Government’s Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme (the RSE scheme)....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – documentary about Phenomena Academy in Fiordland – NZQA accredited institution that teaches how to be healthy and happy – questions raised as to whether students under undue influence from Academy’s founder Aiping Wang – focussed on experience of four former students who were critical of her methods – complaint made by general manager of Academy – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – Academy representatives given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations – lengthy interviews with Aiping Wang and with complainant – views were clearly communicated – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – other statements not inaccurate – not unnecessarily alarmist – no evidence of lack of editorial independence – upheld on two aspects Standard 6 (fairness) – participants given adequate and reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations made – views were clearly…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Rotten Shame – investigated systematic failures in the building industry that led to the leaky homes crisis – reporter door-stepped building inspector who had inspected a house eleven years earlier which had since been demolished – portion of the interview included in the programme – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr George by door-stepping him was unfair – broadcaster’s action in upholding the complaint and apologising to the complainant in its decision was inadequate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – other aspects of the programme were not unfair to the complainant – item focused on systematic failures which led to the leaky homes crisis rather than on the…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast contained inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced information and breached the privacy of Trunk Property's director. The item was materially accurate, was not unfair to Trunk Property or its director and did not breach the director's privacy. Trunk Property was given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the story and its response was fairly presented in the item. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming Introduction [1] 3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....