Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-100 Decision No: 1997-101 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MURRAY ARNESEN of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-126 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PATRICK CURRAN of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that nine SOEs had paid bonuses to staff in 2008 – two SOEs had not responded to Official Information Act requests from the broadcaster – showed reporter at Ombudsman's office handing over a complaint about the lack of response – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfair pressure being placed on Office of the Ombudsman – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

Complaint3 News – complainants included one of two survivors of an air crash in which eight people died – message left on answerphone reporting progress and advising that they were not giving interviews to media – answerphone message omitting reference to interviews broadcast as part of news item – breach of privacy – unfair FindingsStandard 3, Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) – answerphone message aimed at all callers – information was released to the public – no intrusion in the nature of prying – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6e – time of stress for the complainants – high public interest – contents of message in public arena – use of message not insensitive or unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintIt’s Your Money – item on two men looking for love – criticism of The Company Company Ltd, which provides organised singles events – unfair, unbalanced, inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – programme not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – Company able to respond on the programme to criticisms made – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The episode of It’s Your Money which screened on TV2 at 8pm on 12 February 2001 was sub-titled "Looking for Love". The programme looked at the experiences of two men, each of whom had spent time and money trying to find a female partner. The programme examined the various options open to the men, such as dating agencies, internet dating, and event organisers, and explored whether clients of these organisations were getting value for money....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA 990 – Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon – caller allegedly referred to the complainant and his wife – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 3 (privacy), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – recording of broadcast in Hindi and translation incomplete – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] At approximately 7. 30pm on APNA 990 on 26 August 2010, the radio host spoke to a caller during a Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon. The caller commented to the effect that his neighbours had “run away”. Complaint[2] Moh Lateef made a formal complaint to APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the caller was referring to him and his wife, as they lived on the same street as the caller....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on water leak in West Auckland – stated that Watercare had failed to respond to complaints about water leak – interviewed representative from Watercare – showed person drinking water which had come from storm-water drain – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created impression that complaints made to Watercare and that Watercare failed to respond to complaints – Watercare and council separate organisations – item inaccurate and misleading – however, in light of factual background, broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure item accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Watercare invited to appear on Close Up with regard to complaint made 6 November – Watercare given sufficient opportunity to check records given nature of allegations made against it – not upheld…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-065:The Warehouse Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-065 PDF467. 48 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

The Authority has not upheld complaints an item on Sunday breached the accuracy, balance, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards. The broadcast featured a 30 minute report on Aotearoa New Zealand’s medical staffing shortages, and explored whether this issue could be alleviated by the migration of medical staff from the USA, particularly those dissatisfied with the Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Roe v Wade. The complainants considered the broadcast unbalanced, favouring a ‘pro-choice’ perspective....

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

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Minister of Police had declined to be interviewed – host said that when Cabinet Ministers refused to front up and discuss serious issues, they would receive the “no-show pie” – animation showing a photograph of the Minister of Police with a cream pie being pushed into his face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair and in breach of the violence standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the Minister – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no issue of violence – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a possible conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. ComplaintFace to Face with Kim Hill – interview about seabed and foreshore issue with John McEnteer – complaint that item unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 4 – “devil's advocate” approach used – interviewee not intimidated – not unfair – not upheld Standard 6 – style enabled issues to be explored – not unbalanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] John McEnteer of the Hauraki Trust Board was interviewed about the seabed and foreshore controversy on Face to Face with Kim Hill at 9. 30pm on TV One on 9 October 2003. [2] Garry Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was unfair and unbalanced as Mr McEnteer was interrupted and had been subjected to aggressive and “Pakeha-biased” questioning....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two “coming up” promos and opening segment of One News reported that an actor had been “gunned down” by police – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term "gunned down" not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – police representative was given opportunity to explain why the shooting occurred – police treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A “coming up” promo for One News was broadcast at 5. 41pm on Thursday 27 July 2009. The promo included a brief report which stated: Coming up on tonight’s One News, an actor is gunned down by police in a suburban Auckland street. [2] A second promo for the news was broadcast at 5....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item mentioned Charlotte Dawson a number of times – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Decline to determine complaint under s. 11(a) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 on 8 November 2005 at 10pm contained a segment called “Save our Stars”, in which an actor went around the streets of Auckland collecting donations for various television presenters currently working for Prime Television. Correspondence [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the number of times Charlotte Dawson, a local celebrity, was mentioned in the programme. He argued that she had been referred to at least 11 times in the last 10 minutes of the episode, and submitted that Standards 4, 5 and 6 had been breached....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-2035 PDF1. 53 MBComplaint under s....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – hosts commented that immigrant doctors "can't be as good as our doctors", "they would stay overseas if there's opportunity to make more money overseas" and that immigrant doctors require training which makes the job of locally-trained doctors "more challenging" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were hosts' personal opinions – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – comments made during brief exchange between co-hosts – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overseas-trained doctors an occupational group and not individual or organisation to which standard applies – Mr Powell treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcaster did not…...