Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-082:Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-082 PDF1. 41 MB...

*Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics and included an interview with Mr Hager. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the Seven Sharp host was biased and treated Mr Hager unfairly. The host’s comments were clearly his opinion, and Mr Hager was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forward his position. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp was introduced by the hosts, Mike Hosking and Toni Street, as follows: Hosking: So, question: are we shocked at what Nicky Hager has in his book, Dirty Politics? In a word, I think no. it is not the big exposé Hager claims it is; there is no smoking gun....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In a weekly interview segment on Mike Hosking Breakfast, Prime Minister John Key criticised the Labour Party while discussing a number of political topics. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host displayed political bias and let the Prime Minister criticise other parties unchallenged, without them being offered any right of reply. This segment with the Prime Minister of the day has been running for 25 years, it was transparently political advocacy, and it did not purport to be a balanced or even-handed discussion of political issues. Other politicians were also interviewed on Newstalk ZB on a regular basis. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Fairness, Accuracy, Responsible Programming, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction [1] In a weekly interview segment on Mike Hosking Breakfast, the Prime Minister John Key criticised the Labour Party while discussing a number of political topics....

ComplaintsShortland Street – character with bipolar disorder – portrayed as obsessive, delusional and violent – inaccurate – unfair – stereotyping FindingsStandard G1/Standard 5 – fiction – not applicable Standard G6/Standard 4 and Guideline 4a – fiction – not applicable Standard G13/Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no discrimination – dramatic work – no uphold Standard G20/Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – fiction – not applicable Standard G21/ Standard 5 and Guideline 5a – fiction – not applicable This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A storyline about a character with bipolar disorder ("Jack Hewitt") screened during episodes of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on weeknights from 3 December to 14 December 2001 and on 21 January 2002. During these episodes, "Jack" attempted to kill "Chris Warner", kidnapped "Rachel McKenna" and then committed suicide....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-015 Dated the 27th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AUCKLAND TROTTING CLUB (INC) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Rumble – breakfast show hosts on The Rock discussed a story featured on Close Up the previous night about two girls who alleged that, twelve-years prior, an ex-All Black had engaged in sexual activity with one of them while she had been unconscious – the hosts noted that the girl had accepted a payment from the man to settle the matter – one host made the comment, “See, all I see is that that woman and her mate have cashed in at both ends” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – some elements of unfairness – however, hosts entitled to voice their opinions in the manner in which they did – freedom of expression – not upheldStandard 4…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Zindagi Forever – programme featured stage-set musical performance – song lyrics made references to God – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – standards not applicable as not a news, current affairs or factual programme – programme wholly opinion-based and explored religious beliefs – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hinduism a religious tradition and not an individual or organisation to which the standard applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Zindagi Forever, a religious programme, was broadcast on Triangle TV on 17 September 2011. The programme featured a stage-set musical performance in which the song lyrics (in Hindi with English subtitles) made various references to God....

SummarySome customer complaints that Telecom had "hijacked" users of other telephone companies were investigated in an item on 3 National News, broadcast between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 1 December 1997. "Hijacking" involves diverting customers, without their permission, from other telephone companies to the "hijacker". The solicitors for Telecom New Zealand Ltd complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair and unbalanced in both its preparation and presentation in alleging that Telecom was the only company involved in this activity, and that it was occurring on a substantial scale. A balanced item would have reported that unauthorised diversions were rare, and were undertaken by other companies as well, the complainant wrote. On the basis that the item accurately reported Telecom's claim that other companies signed up customers against their will, TV3 declined to uphold the first part of the complaint....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Flipside – item reporting on Ahmed Zaoui, an Algerian refugee, having his birthday in a New Zealand prison – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – balance provided during period of current interest – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on Flipside on TV2 at 5pm on 7 December 2004 reported on Ahmed Zaoui, an Algerian refugee, who was having his birthday in a New Zealand prison. Flipside was a news and current interest programme delivered in a style that appealed to a youth audience. [2] The item comprised video showing Mr Zaoui’s supporters holding a “birthday party” outside the prison, comments from his supporters and a studio interview with his lawyer....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-085 Dated the 6th day of August 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY OF NEW ZEALAND TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – story about a man convicted of defrauding ACC who later successfully appealed to the Supreme Court – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item focused on one man and his successful appeal to the Supreme Court – touched on criticisms of ACC’s conduct which could be controversial and of public importance – broadcast statement from ACC addressing criticisms – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item omitted information that may have been useful – but did not contain any inaccuracies which amounted to a breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 12 June 2009, featured a man who had been convicted of defrauding ACC, and later won an appeal to the Supreme Court....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – lead story on speculation that recently announced tax cuts in the Australian Federal budget could attract an increased number of migrants from New Zealand – allegedly unbalanced in that it omitted to mention New Zealand’s low tax rate by OECD standardsFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – controversial issue was whether the cut in tax rates would lead to increased migration – significant points of view presented about that issue – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The possible attraction to New Zealanders of the recently announced tax cuts in the Australian Federal budget was discussed on Morning Report on 11 May 2006, immediately following the 7. 00am news. The item referred to spokespeople from recruitment agencies who said migration to Australia could increase unless there were tax reductions in the forthcoming New Zealand budget....

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....

ComplaintHavoc and Newsboy’s Sell Out Tour 2 – allegations about public relations companies – offensive language – inaccurate – unbalanced, biased and unfair FindingsStandard G1 – subsumed Standard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – serious allegations made – no acknowledgment that they were contestable – uphold Standard G6 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A sequence broadcast during the satirical programme Havoc and Newsboy’s Sell Out Tour 2 on TV2 on 15 August 2000 beginning at 9. 30pm, contained an interview with political activist Nicky Hagar. Mr Hagar made a number of claims about the public relations industry. Among references to various public relations companies, Mr Hagar named Hill & Knowlton, an international company operating in New Zealand, as being responsible for putting a favourable spin on America’s involvement in the Gulf War....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on vandalism at Horowhenua Rowing Club – included footage of the complainant verbally abusing a kayaker, and interview with complainant – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item suggested that the complainant may have been responsible for the vandalism – however, the complainant was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut that suggestion and the reporter made it clear that no one had been charged for the vandalism – the complainant explained his behaviour as depicted in the footage – use of the term “uncle” to link the complainant and a young rower would not have changed viewers’ impression of the complainant or the situation – reference to assault conviction was correct at the time of broadcast – overall, complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term “uncle”…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 3rd Degree reported on a Korean man X who was ousted from his local church community for his participation in a ‘mockumentary’ about North Korea. The programme included an interview with the editor of a local Korean newspaper (one of the complainants), and attempted to interview a priest from X’s church. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the story was unfair to the interviewees and breached the newspaper editor’s privacy. The programme made genuine attempts to obtain comment from the interviewees, and they were treated fairly. The newspaper editor agreed to an interview so the broadcast did not disclose any private facts about him. The story did not discuss a controversial issue which required the presentation of alternative views; it focused on one man’s personal experiences....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-095:Edmunds and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-095 PDF846. 89 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....