Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item broadcast secret recording of comments made by National Party deputy leader Bill English – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of anonymously supplied tape inherently unfair – however, Mr English had opportunity to comment, John Key provided comment, and 3 News informed viewers of circumstances surrounding the tape – degree of public interest leading up to election – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 4 November 2008, reported that 3 News had been sent a secret recording of comments made by the deputy leader of the National Party, Bill English, at a cocktail party during National's August 2008 conference. The 3 News presenter said, The recording is clearly designed to derail John Key’s election campaign ....

...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported allegations that during his time as a teacher, Cabinet Minister David Benson-Pope was “sleazy” and made female students stand outside in their nighties as punishment at a school camp – included comments from Mr Benson-Pope – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue of public importance whether Mr Benson-Pope had acted inappropriately towards female students during his time as a teacher – significant perspectives were aired during period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies or misleading impressions – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – door-stepping interview not unfair – reporter entitled to approach Cabinet Minister – overall Mr Benson-Pope treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintLocation, Location, Location – property sale – gratuitous exposure of the vendors’ relationship – allegedly insensitive and unfair FindingsStandard 6 – argument pivotal to transaction– no adverse reflection on complainant – not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode in the series Location, Location, Location was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Monday 7 July 2003. One part of the programme featured Mr and Mrs Hepworth attempting to sell their home. [2] Mrs Hepworth complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unfair to her by including an argument between her and her husband that was incidental to the programme. [3] TVNZ maintained that it could not identify any aspect of the programme where the complainant had been treated unfairly. Accordingly, it declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintSunday – Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) – results of Women’s Health Initiative reported (WHI) – complainant participated in item as representative of WISDOM – item included minimal scientific facts – potentially frightening – confusing – unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – purpose of item to pose questions about use of HRT – no uphold Standard 5 – while further information would have been useful, material presented not inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – complainant’s views advanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The potential health risks of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) were examined during an item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 August 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – complainant was convicted of raping and abusing his daughter and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment – subsequent legal dispute between them about ownership of painting – daughter withdrew from proceedings which were resolved in complainant’s favour – item reported that complainant while in prison had then brought private prosecution for fraud against daughter arising from dispute over painting – item reported that daughter unable to get legal aid for painting dispute and required to sell her house – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item not unfair – not upheld The Authority declined to determine aspects of the complaint pursuant to section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Saturday Morning featured an interview with a filmmaker about his recent documentary Going Clear about the Church of Scientology. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced, unfair and biased against the Church. The focus of the interview was the filmmaker's perspective and his experience making the film; it did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required a balancing viewpoint to be presented. The nature of the programme was such that the broadcaster was not required in the interests of fairness to inform the Church prior to broadcast or invite its comment in response....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News Tonight reported on a pro-rail rally in Whangarei, which occurred in reaction to KiwiRail’s decision to discontinue part of the North Rail Link. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. The item included a variety of significant viewpoints on KiwiRail’s decision, and it did not imply that the Government’s or KiwiRail’s views on the issue were more valid than other views. In the context of a brief news report, the pro-rail rally was accurately conveyed, and no individual or organisation was identified by the complainant as being treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News Tonight reported on a pro-rail rally in Whangarei, which occurred in reaction to KiwiRail’s decision to discontinue part of the North Rail Link....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of current affairs programme Outspoken interviewed two experts about the possibility of a special legal commission in New Zealand to investigate allegations of miscarriages of justice. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the broadcast breached standards because it did not mention alleged government corruption as one of the contributing factors to such injustice. Mr Golden has repeatedly referred similar complaints, which are based on his personal preferences and are matters of editorial discretion, not broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine: Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During Outspoken, a half-hour current affairs programme, the host interviewed two experts about the possibility of a special legal commission in New Zealand to investigate allegations of miscarriages of justice....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber, and made unfair and derogatory comments about her duties and her personal attributes. The broadcaster upheld the complaint, and Mr Henry apologised on air a week later. The Authority considered the segment to be a serious breach of standards, but in all the circumstances found the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken) Introduction [1] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber and discussed her position and responsibilities. The presenter also read out excerpts from her job description....

SummaryThe New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd was the subject of items on Holmes broadcast at 7. 00pm on 15 and 16 December 1998. The item on the 15th suggested that some students had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the school’s programme. It also included an interview with Ms Marilyn Hudson, the School’s Managing Director. The item on the 16th included comments from other dissatisfied past and present students and their families, and an interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about both items. She said that the first item contained inaccuracies, and was unbalanced, misleading and unfair both to her and the School. The second item, Ms Hudson complained, also contained some inaccuracies, and again was unbalanced, misleading and unfair....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-046 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint 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: 1998-060 Dated the 18th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND COMMITTEE FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS OF THE PARANORMAL INC. of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members: L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary In an item on Holmes broadcast on 1 July 1998 between 7. 00–7. 30pm, tributes were paid to a nine-year-old girl who had died from a brain tumour. It was reported that in spite of having had surgery in the United States, she had recently died. Mrs Hunt of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the close up pictures of "a very ill, sad and distressed child" were totally unnecessary and would have caused distress to any parents or children suffering from terminal illnesses. She said she considered it in the worst possible taste to show pictures of a child close to death, and she contended it was particularly disturbing to children. TVNZ emphasised that the tribute to the little girl reflected the Holmes team’s esteem for her....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday – item on the sentencing of Millie Elder for drug offences – referred to her as the adopted daughter of Paul Holmes – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – the word “adopted” was not used in a pejorative way – statement was true – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News: Midday, broadcast on TV One at 12pm on Monday 31 March 2008, reported on the sentencing of Millie Elder on drug offences. At the beginning of the item, the presenter said: The adopted daughter of broadcaster Paul Holmes, Millie Elder, will be sentenced in the Auckland District Court today on a range of drug charges. Paul Holmes arrived at court to support his daughter, as did her mother, Hine Elder....

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”…...