Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of The Project discussing multiple musicians’ backlash to podcaster Joe Rogan, which mentioned his use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, breached the fairness standard. The Authority found Rogan was not treated unfairly in the broadcast and, if any harm had arisen from the broadcast, it did not meet the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-174 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CLIVE HAYWARD of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – all were dissatisfied with Strata Title Administration Limited and its director Michael Chapman-Smith – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Mr Chapman-Smith had agreed to an interview and then changed his mind – other statements not inaccurate – one aspect upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overall item was fair – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 13 October 2004 examined complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – Tuscany Towers, Ponsonby Crest, Waterford Apartments and Garden Grove....

ComplaintOne News – interview with Chief Ombudsman about tax-payer funded sex-change operation where health bureaucracy acted unfairly – incorrect impression portrayed of ombudsman’s decision contrary to agreement before interview – unfair – distortion Interlocutory Decision 2001-ID001 – order to TVNZ to supply field tape to the Authority Interlocutory Decision 2001-ID002 – order to supply field tape to the complainant FindingsStandards G4 and G19 – item explained issue dealt with in Chief Ombudsman’s ruling – extract did not distort Chief Ombudsman’s comments – Chief Ombudsman not dealt with unfairly – no uphold Standard G1 – item’s introduction inaccurate – upholdNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ruling by the Ombudsman that a person seeking a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation had been treated unfairly by the health bureaucracy was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast on TV One between 6. 00–7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: How to Spot a Cult – two-part documentary – spoke to former members of cults – included three former members of Scientology – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Church of Scientology was well informed about the nature of the programmes – Church’s responses were included in the programme – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Inside New Zealand: How to Spot a Cult was a two-part documentary series which was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Wednesday 25 November and Wednesday 2 December 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – item about violence encountered by staff working with dementia patients – contained interviews with a nurse working in a dementia ward, a representative from the Nurses Organisation and a spokesperson from the Ministry of Health – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – broadcaster presented the required significant viewpoints – perspective of care providers not vital to discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment complained about was not a statement of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people and organisations taking part and referred to treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera trial evaluated six car grooming companies – complainant’s business sign was shown in establishing shot for another company’s evaluation – allegedly in breach of fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster could have taken more care but shot was brief and the programme made it clear which company was being evaluated – not unfair to complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV3 on Tuesday 4 November 2009, the presenter summarised the results of a hidden camera trial in which an actress hired six different car grooming companies. Target hid a ten-dollar note in the back of the car and some change in the front seat as a test of the car groomers’ honesty....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-105 Dated the 14th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MELANIE SMITH and TERESA SAMMUT-SMITH of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 101/95 Dated the 12th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUSAN STRINGER of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-076 Decision No: 1998-077 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALICE HALLIWELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-161 Decision No: 1997-162 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by Mr X of Napier Broadcaster H B MEDIA GROUP LTD of Hastings S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintJason Lewis complained that an episode of Coastwatch breached his privacy and was unfair. The item showed him being issued with a $250 fine for having five undersized paua in his catch, two years after he was filmed. The complainant said he had not known he was being filmed for television, and that showing the incident two years after it happened was unfair, particularly as the fine had been waived a week after it was issued. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said the programme had not broadcast any private facts about the complainant, who had been filmed in a public place. Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM Dunedin – complainant live on-air as winner of two movie tickets – said she was studying – host allegedly said “and to think three years ago you were sitting on your arse doing nothing going nowhere” – allegedly unfair and breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – no intrusion – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – comment intended as compliment – apology offered in view of misunderstanding appropriate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The complainant was a caller to More FM Dunedin as the winner of two movie tickets. She was put on air by the host and, in response to a question, she said that she was studying....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported sentencing of man convicted for stabbing a teenage tagger – reporter asked victim’s family for comment regarding defence lawyer telling them to “get over it” – footage showed lawyer saying it was “time for people to move forward, to move on” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – reporter’s question was a reasonable summation of the lawyer’s comments when juxtaposed with footage of lawyer’s comments – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify who he thought was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary A representative of a beneficiaries’ organisation was interviewed on National Radio’s Nine to Noon on 21 July 1999 beginning at 9. 06am. The interview arose in the context of controversy surrounding the operation of Work and Income New Zealand. Mr Boyce complained to RNZ, the broadcaster, that the beneficiary representative was not treated fairly because he was not named in the introduction to the item. He contended that the interviewee was discriminated against because of his status as a beneficiary. RNZ provided a brief response in which it asserted that the interviewee had been dealt with fairly, and that it had acted in a socially responsible manner. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s response, Mr Boyce referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to determine the complaint....

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific talkback – discussion about Exclusive Brethren and religious cults – host alleged, among other things, that Exclusive Brethren were mad, ignorant, bad neighbours and probable child abusers who should be bred out of the human race – broadcast allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, degrading, defamatory and discriminatoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumedPrinciple 4 (balance) – subsumedPrinciple 5 (fairness) – unfair to Exclusive Brethren – upheldPrinciple 7 (denigration and discrimination) – encouraged denigration of members of Exclusive Brethren – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – costs awards totalling $3456. 74This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Exclusive Brethren and whether religions sects should be granted dispensation from certain laws of New Zealand was one of three topics discussed during Michael Laws’ talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 13 July 2004....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA talkback – interview with managing director of Moshims Discount House Ltd about allegations that expired food items were sent as aid to flood victims in Fiji – after interview, a listener phoned in alleging that Discount House sold food that had passed its expiry date – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcast not a factual programme or current affairs – comprised of opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond to claims – complainant and his company treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....