Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Breakfast bulletin reported that Auckland's Okahu Bay would be closed to the public for one day due to a private event held by local iwi Ngāti Whātua Orākei. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, unfair and encouraged discrimination by omitting the views of Ngāti Whātua and implying their actions were 'wrong'. It would have been preferable to include comment from Ngāti Whātua in the initial broadcast, and by failing to fully explain why Okahu Bay was closed, viewers could have been left with an ill-informed, negative view of Ngāti Whātua. However comment was included in later TVNZ broadcasts the same day which mitigated any potential unfairness. Nothing in the item encouraged the denigration of, or discrimination against, Ngāti Whātua and/or Māori....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on the environmental state of the Manawatu River – presenter stated that the river was "rated among the most polluted in the Western World" – reporter said that the Cawthron Institute had described the river as "one of the most polluted in the Western World" – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – while statements that Manawatu River was one of the most polluted in the Western World were not precise, the overriding message was correct – viewers not misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Monday 9 August 2010, looked at the environmental state of the Manawatu River....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that nine SOEs had paid bonuses to staff in 2008 – two SOEs had not responded to Official Information Act requests from the broadcaster – showed reporter at Ombudsman's office handing over a complaint about the lack of response – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfair pressure being placed on Office of the Ombudsman – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two “coming up” promos and opening segment of One News reported that an actor had been “gunned down” by police – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term "gunned down" not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – police representative was given opportunity to explain why the shooting occurred – police treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A “coming up” promo for One News was broadcast at 5. 41pm on Thursday 27 July 2009. The promo included a brief report which stated: Coming up on tonight’s One News, an actor is gunned down by police in a suburban Auckland street. [2] A second promo for the news was broadcast at 5....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item about two young New Zealanders who won prizes in an essay competition on issues of public concern – one essay about the impact of mussel farming on the marine environment – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – essay competition was the item’s focus, not mussel industry – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – opinions not facts about mussel industry advanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Two young New Zealand conservationists who had won prices in an essay competition were interviewed in One News broadcast on TV One beginning at 6. 00pm on 18 July 2004. One had written an essay on the impact of mussel farming on the marine environment, focusing on the Marlborough Sounds....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-055:John Carter MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-055 PDF359. 68 KB...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – episodes showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha – showed confrontation between an unidentifiable surfing instructor and lifeguards when lifeguards attempted to rescue students and instructor resisted – allegedly in breach of fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no surf school was named in 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only – Piha surf schools not treated unfairly – the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard – 12 March episode not unfair – 19 March episode captured events accurately and fairly and footage not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident – Mr Wallis was not identifiable – Mr Wallis’ perspective was clear from his comments that were included in the…...

ComplaintInside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision – documentary – abortion –inaccurate statements – unbalanced – undermined New Zealand legislation FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2a – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 4 – programme balanced – no upholdStandard 5 and Guidelines 5b, 5d & 5e – mixture of fact & opinion – accurate and impartial – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Inside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision was a documentary which followed three women while they made a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Several other women, who had been through the same experience, were also interviewed on the programme. The documentary was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 28 November 2002....

ComplaintOne News – item reported survey of teenagers’ attitudes – suggested amongst other things trend to drugs away from alcohol and disrespect for New Zealand Flag and Anthem – inaccurate – biased FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G5 – no disrespect for principles of law – no uphold Standard G6 – not unfair or unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The findings of a survey of teenagers were reported in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 29 October 2001. Among the findings were changes in attitudes to drugs, the National Anthem and the New Zealand Flag. [2] Kenneth Lord complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the findings were biased and amounted to propaganda....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – item reported on the alleged closure of Whakatane Hospital’s Microbiology Department and the movement of all microbiology services to Tauranga – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was inaccurate and misleading in creating the impression that Whakatane Hospital’s Microbiology Department was closing down and all microbiology testing services were being moved to Tauranga – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Te Karere, broadcast on TV One on 4 October 2011, reported on the alleged closure of Whakatane Hospital’s Microbiology Department and the movement of all microbiology services to Tauranga....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item about Tana Umaga’s appointment as All Black captain – reference to Mr Umaga’s dreadlocks – presenter allegedly implied that dreadlocked sportspeople are incompetent and engage in sexually deviant behaviour and law breaking – allegedly breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter’s comments innocuous – neither indecent nor in bad taste – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – matters complained about not expressed or implied in the broadcast – no basis for any of the complainant’s allegations in presenter’s comments – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about new pricing structures for national calls at Telecom – graphic stated $0. 08c per minute on national calls – correct price $0. 18c per minute – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic inaccurate – significant mistake requiring correction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6:00pm on 26 August 2004, contained an item on new pricing structures at Telecom for national calls. During the item, a graphic noted the following: “Anytime Plan” National Calling: $0. 08c per minute National Capped: $2. 75 (up to two hours) Home to Mobile: $0. 48c calls to 027 & 025, $0. 55c calls to 021 & 029 [2] The correct price for national calls was in fact $0. 18c per minute....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and 3 News – items reported on New Zealand Film and Television Awards – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – material to be included in news items is a matter of editorial discretion not broadcasting standards – Authority declines jurisdiction to accept and consider the complaints on the grounds that Mr Dougherty did not lodge valid formal complaints with the broadcasters This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Sunday 19 September 2010, both One News (broadcast on TV One) and 3 News (broadcast on TV3) reported on the results of the Qantas Film and Television Awards which had been announced the previous evening. Complaints [2] Ian Dougherty made formal complaints to Television New Zealand Ltd and TVWorks Ltd, the broadcasters, alleging that the news items breached Standard 5 (accuracy)....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-008:Cook Islands Pearls Ltd and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-008 PDF982. 08 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A panel discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora suggested that fraud in the ‘Māori sector’ is often treated differently to other fraud. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the programme breached standards because the panellists should have made reference to the ‘2004 Feltex IPO fraud’ as an example of ‘non-Māori fraud’. The complainant’s concerns were matters of personal preference and editorial discretion, and the Authority’s decisions on previous complaints should have put him notice of the likely outcome of this complaint. Declined to Determine: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During a panel discussion on Afternoons with Jim Mora, one of the topics was the criticism levelled at a Native Affairs investigation into the potential misappropriation of public funds by the Te Kōhanga Reo National Trust Board....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Radio Sport host commented to the programme producer, ‘I wonder when Team New Zealand are going to tell us all that one of their chief designers quit a couple of weeks ago. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was inaccurate because no designer had resigned. Listeners would have interpreted the comments as speculation or gossip, rather than confirmed fact. Not Upheld: AccuracyIntroduction[1] During The Devlin Radio Show on Radio Sport, the host commented to the programme producer, ‘I wonder when Team New Zealand are going to tell us all that one of their chief designers quit a couple of weeks ago. ’ The programme was broadcast on 30 June 2014....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – investigation of availability of ingredients needed to make methamphetamine or ‘P’ – hidden camera footage of two shopkeepers – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not relevant – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not list all of the ingredients needed to make ‘P’ – no recipes or techniques mentioned – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – high level of public interest in the items – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not relevant to complainant’s concerns – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcaster did not mislead or alarm viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about pyjamas purchased from The Warehouse that had ignited and burned a five-year-old boy while he was standing next to a gas heater – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster upheld one aspect of accuracy – balance, fairness and dissatisfaction with action taken referred to AuthorityFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – action taken by broadcaster on aspect it upheld was sufficient – no other inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to The Warehouse in the preparation and presentation of the programme – upheld Orders Broadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $3,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....