Search Rapua

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”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Summary Some dissatisfaction expressed by three purchasers of cars from Saevue Motors in New Plymouth was considered in an item broadcast on Holmes, between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 11 December 1997. The possibility of odometer tampering was raised. Mr Rawlings complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and unfair. He noted that there had been no effort to gauge the extent of the problem among the company's total customer base, and he claimed that the company was portrayed as a "monster". On the basis that the information contained in the item justified the investigation, TVNZ reported that it had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the company to participate in the programme. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

SummaryAn interview with physicist Dr Paul Davies focussed on what the interviewer described as "one of the world’s greatest mysteries, how did life first get started" in an episode of the BBC series, Discovery, broadcast on National Radio on 7 October 1998. Dr Davies hypothesised on the processes of mutation and natural selection, and the possible injection of information into genomes through Darwinian evolution. Mr Fox complained to Radio New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that Dr Davies’ comments were inaccurate and unbalanced. He said it was incorrect to state that mutation and natural selection increased information in the genome. The programme, he wrote, should have included the Creationist view about the origin of information in living things. Responding, RNZ denied that the comments were inaccurate, and pointed out that they were the scientifically-based opinions of Dr Davies, had been identified as such, and were reported truthfully and accurately....

Summary The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme informationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed about an identifiable person – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-154 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN TURNEY of Kumeu Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast of the personal views of certain celebrities who supported changing the flag resulted in an unbalanced and partial programme. While the item featured several celebrities in support of the alternative flag, it also mentioned some who supported the current flag. In the context of the item this was a sufficient acknowledgement of significant viewpoints on the issue. Furthermore, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the different perspectives on the flag referendum issue. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report covered a truce between Israel and Hamas during the Gaza conflict. A Palestinian rights activist and an Israeli spokesman were interviewed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced because more air time was given to the Palestinian view, and because no significant point of view was presented from an equivalent Israeli activist. There is no requirement for mathematically equal time to be given to competing perspectives on controversial issues. Sufficient efforts were made during the broadcast to showcase the Israeli, as well as the Palestinian, perspective. Further, listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of a range of views on the Gaza conflict given the extensive and ongoing coverage of this issue....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Prime Minister John Key had referred “tea tapes” matter to the police – he commented that “The good thing is we’ve lowered the crime rate by seven percent right across the country so they do have a little bit of spare time” – reporter said that “John Key may face criticism on a couple of fronts, firstly, for saying that police have too much time on their hands” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers heard Mr Key’s original comment so they would not have been misled – viewers would have understood the item was broadcast in a robust political environment in the lead-up to the election – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – politicians are aware of robust political arena and should expect to have their views commented…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on a proposal by PHARMAC to decline funding for a drug needed to treat a rare blood disorder. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was unbalanced and portrayed PHARMAC as ‘irresponsible and heartless’. The item was transparently an advocacy piece presented from the perspective of people who opposed PHARMAC’s proposal, in particular a New Zealand man suffering from the disorder who desperately needed the drug. The item emphasised that the high cost of the drug was the main reason behind PHARMAC’s proposal, and it contained a fair summary of a statement provided by PHARMAC to the programme....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 27/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ADOLF SOETEMAN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A representative of the Airline Pilots’ Association was interviewed on Holmes, broadcast at 7. 00pm on TV One on 2 September 1999, in connection with a strike by Ansett pilots. Mr Geddes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was biased, unbalanced and actively denigrated pilots involved in the dispute. He said he was appalled at the rudeness of the interviewer and his unprofessional, discourteous behaviour. TVNZ conceded that the interview could be described as "robust" but did not agree that it was rude or biased. The pilots’ representative was given full opportunity to respond on their behalf, it argued. It explained that, as management had declined to appear, balance was achieved by the presenter adopting a "devil’s advocate" position in order to prevent the item from becoming a chronicle of viewpoints from the Pilots’ Association....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Complaint that Māori Television did not refer to the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsMatter of editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Complaint [1] Dilip Rupa complained that the current affairs programme Native Affairs, broadcast by Māori Television on 28 October 2009, did not mention that it was the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand. He said that this was not balanced reporting. Broadcaster's Response to the Complainant [2] Māori Television confirmed that it had not broadcast any items referring to the Declaration of Independence on that date. Referral to the Authority [3] Dilip Rupa forwarded his complaint to the Authority for review....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – news item on puppies being euthanized by Invercargill City Council – included interview with the mayor of Invercargill – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns did not relate to a material point of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Breakfast’s news segment, broadcast on TV One at 8. 05am on Thursday 20 August 2009, reported on puppies being destroyed by Invercargill City Council. The presenter stated: Invercargill’s Mayor is standing by his Council amid accusations that it’s unnecessarily killing puppies....