Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – discussed concerns that the product was defective and putting homes at risk – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – seen overall, item seriously criticised TimberSaver product – no scientific evidence provided to refute criticisms – no evidence provided of quality and suitability of product – unbalanced – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – scientist on programme not independent – conflict of interest – contrary to guideline 5e – upheld – other aspects of accuracy complaint not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – seen overall, item unfair to Osmose – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,000 Payment of costs to the Crown $2,000This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiling the Destiny Church and its pastor – interviews with the pastor, former members of the Church, a university lecturer and the director of Cultwatch – allegedly unbalanced and unfair to the Destiny ChurchFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – sufficient opportunity given to the Church and its pastor to present its views on the controversial issues – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Church given opportunity to respond to issues raised – not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday shown on TV One at 7. 30pm on 3 October 2004 profiled the Destiny Church and its leader, Pastor Brian Tamaki. The segment gave background information about the church and its recent march to Parliament protesting the Civil Union Bill....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 National Radio – Nine to Noon – joint interview with organiser of anti-racism march in Christchurch and leader of National Front – complainant alleged that interview on National Radio gave National Front credibility and legitimacy – item allegedly unbalanced and unfair as National Front not legitimate commentator on immigration issuesFindings Principle 4 (balance) – programme presented both sides of debate – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – programme not unfair to identifiable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon on 10 May 2004 the presenter (Linda Clark) conducted a joint interview with the organiser of an anti-racism march in Christchurch, Mr Lincoln Tan, and the organiser of a National Front counter-march, Mr Kyle Chapman....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-121 Decision No: 1996-122 Dated the 19th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by P G CURRAN of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-149 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE MONARCHIST LEAGUE OF NEW ZEALAND INC Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintCheckpoint – Waitara shooting – police officer not named – unbalanced interview with his lawyer – interviewer partial FindingsPrinciple 4 – a number of viewpoints heard – not partial – balance achieved over time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The lawyer for the police officer who shot and killed a man in Waitara was one of those interviewed in an item on the shooting broadcast on Checkpoint on National Radio on 16 August 2000 between 5. 00–6. 00pm. She explained some of the background to the shooting and defended the request that the officer not be named by the media. Simon Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and that it was "extraordinary" that the lawyer was interviewed and given an opportunity to defend the police officer....

Tapu Misa declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Fijian Language Programme – interview with Adi Asenaca discussing the policies of the deposed SDL government – Ms Asenaca gave her views on the coup and the interim government – allegedly in breach of balance and social responsibility standards Findings No recording available – decline to determine complaint under s11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Niu FM during its Fijian Language Programme on 23 March 2007, contained an interview with former Fijian MP Adi Asenaca. [2] The interview focused on discussing several policies and laws introduced by the former Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) government in Fiji....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a possible conflict of interest because of knowing one of the complainants and also as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal that was to hear the foreshore and seabed claims, so did not participate in the determination of these complaints....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – “Troubled Waters” – boating accident involving fishing expert Wayne Wills aka “Bill Hohepa” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair as item suggested that Maritime Safety Authority had relentlessly and unjustifiably pursued, and continued to pursue, Mr WillsFindings Standard 4 (balance) – reasonable efforts made to present significant points of view – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained one inaccuracy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Wills’ view was not unfair to the MSA – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The consequences of a boating incident in 1996 involving the fishing expert Wayne Wills, better known and referred to in the programme as “Bill Hohepa”, in which one person drowned, was dealt with in an item broadcast on TV3 in 60 Minutes on 8 December 2003....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 59/94 Dated the 2nd day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 3 News discussed New Zealand’s efforts to remove the veto power held by permanent member states on the United Nations Security Council. Both the presenter and reporter referred to a recent example of Russia exercising its veto in relation to a proposed tribunal to investigate the crash of flight MH17. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the item was misleading and unbalanced because Russia in fact was supportive of investigating the MH17 tragedy and holding those responsible to account, but was not in favour of setting up a tribunal on the matter. The item was materially accurate and the reference to Russia’s exercise of the veto power did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance which triggered the need to present alternative views....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – graphic “Election 2011” during election coverage included ticked blue box – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – use of the logo did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – broadcaster entitled to editorial discretion to use standard graphics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During One News election coverage broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 18 October 2011, a logo was displayed stating “Election 2011”, which included a blue box with a white tick mark....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Graeme Hill Show – included commentary from well-known atheist Pat Condell – Mr Condell made negative statements about religion and those who hold religious beliefs – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues and denigration and discrimination standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – Bill of Rights Act – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked the necessary invective to reach the threshold for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – segment was an opinion piece – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Graeme Hill Show was broadcast on Radio Live at approximately 12. 55pm on Saturday 5 September 2009....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A – host interviewed Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions and John Barnett from South Pacific Pictures about controversy surrounding production of the film The Hobbit in New Zealand – host’s approach towards Ms Kelly allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host’s approach aggressive but did not extend to personal attack against Ms Kelly – Ms Kelly should have expected to be interviewed robustly about The Hobbit dispute – not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – Ms Kelly given adequate opportunity to present the union’s viewpoint – significant perspectives on the topic presented within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Is Milk Safe? – documentary based on ABC programme “White Mischief” – examined possible differences in health benefits of A1 and A2 milk – allegedly unbalanced as complainant argued that it suggested A2 only was safeFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – significant points of view advanced about both A1 and A2 milk – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A documentary Is Milk Safe? was broadcast on Dunedin’s Channel 9 at 8. 30pm on 14 June 2004. Using an ABC 4 Corners item “White Mischief”, it examined some of the differences between A1 and A2 milk. Complaint [2] Leslie Simpson complained to Channel 9 that the programme did not address the question of the safety of milk. Rather, it dealt with the differences between A1 and A2 milk....