Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-084 Dated the 30th day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK PULLAR of Auckland TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the 211 Helpline – said Opposition MPs were questioning whether service was too expensive and duplicated the service run by the Citizens Advice Bureau – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed – item did not need to include details about what the 211 service might cost if rolled out nationally – majority considers item should have explained that 211 service was operating more extensive hours than the CAB – majority uphold Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed under Standard 4 Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On TV One at 6pm on 23 May 2006, an item on One News discussed the 211 Helpline, a community helpline run by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD)....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback and made comments about a female guest's appearance – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint, apologised to complainant and spoke to host and senior staff of Breakfast – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken sufficient – breach of standards handled appropriately by the broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 25 March 2009, a Greenpeace representative was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. [2] Following the interview, in a viewer feedback segment at 7....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Native Affairs, entitled ‘Bones of Contention’, reported on the discovery of ‘kōiwi’ (human remains) at a development site in Devonport, and apparent tensions between iwi and the owner and developer of the site, Redback Develop Ltd. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from Redback that the item contained inaccurate information about the development and the discovery of kōiwi. Nor did the Authority uphold the complaint that the content of the panel discussion was misleading. The broadcaster treated Redback fairly and made reasonable efforts to put forward Redback’s position, by inviting onto the programme the individual who it had been referred to as the appropriate person to comment....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that a segment on The Project that questioned whether a ‘stolen generation’ was being created in light of an investigative report into Oranga Tamariki’s uplifting of a child breached broadcasting standards. The Authority acknowledged the sensitive nature of the issue addressed but found the item, and specifically the host’s use of the term ‘stolen generation’ was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress. The Authority also found the item was unlikely to mislead viewers regarding the situation considering the nature of the programme and the presentation of alternate viewpoints on the issue. Finally, the Authority found the broadcast did not result in any unfairness to Oranga Tamariki that justified the restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression, as its perspective was clearly presented in the short item. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging an item on AM breached several standards including accuracy. The broadcast attributed several acts of violence against police, during the February–March 2022 protest and occupation of Parliament grounds, to protesters. The complainant stated there was no evidence the events occurred, and that there was no evidence the violence was caused by protesters. The complainant also submitted the broadcast implied a reporter was ‘manhandled’ on Parliament grounds when in fact she was on Lambton Quay. The Authority found the broadcast was not materially misleading and the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy. The fairness and discrimination and denigration standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a talkback segment on the Leighton Smith Show, the host discussed the recent legal personhood granted to the Whanganui River. The complainant, Mr Haines, phoned in to the programme to discuss the issue. After a two-and-a-half minute conversation, Mr Smith responded that it was ‘stupidity to give [the Whanganui River] equal status as a person. Now get off the phone,’ and made comments about Mr Haines self-identifying as Māori. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Smith’s statements were derogatory and insulting to Mr Haines and to Māori people. While the Authority acknowledged that Mr Smith’s comments could be seen as dismissive and disrespectful, in the context of the robust talkback radio environment, they did not reach the level necessary to constitute unfair treatment or to encourage discrimination or denigration....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Saturday Morning featured a segment in which presenter Kim Hill interviewed former MP and spokesperson for lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, Dr Don Brash, about the use of te reo Māori in New Zealand, specifically in RNZ broadcasting, without translation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Dr Brash challenging and critical questions, Dr Brash had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view, and listeners would not have been left misinformed with regard to Dr Brash’s position. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Dr Brash’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Dr Brash being treated unfairly....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about coverage on The AM Show of proposed changes to safe zones around abortion clinics. The statements alleged to be inaccurate were comment, opinion or analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The balance standard did not apply as the separate news bulletins did not amount to a discussion; and in any event, differing perspectives from Abortion Rights Aotearoa and Voice for Life NZ were included. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

Summary The dissatisfactions expressed by a number of students at the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch were examined in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. A follow-up item was broadcast on Holmes on TV One between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 12 April 1999. The Managing Director of the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the April item was unfair and unbalanced, and inaccurate in a number of respects. TVNZ considered that one aspect of the item was unfair, and in breach of the standards, as Ms Hudson was not advised that a telephone conversation between herself and a student, contained in the broadcast, was being recorded. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint relating to the alleged inaccuracies or lack of balance....

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....

SummaryAbortion was a topic touched on during the talkback programme Banksie on Sunday, broadcast on Radio Pacific between 10:00am – 2:00pm on Sunday 14 April 1996. The host (Hon John Banks MP) described doctors who perform abortions as baby murderers, and claimed that the aborted foetuses were put into the hospital waste disposal systems or in "Kleensaks". Mr Sawyers complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that the "highly emotive" remarks were inaccurate, unbalanced, and unfair to the doctors who carried out abortions. Explaining that the host had been expressing his own strong opinion, that other hosts had different opinions, and that callers were able to present a diversity of views on the subject, Radio Pacific denied that the standards had been contravened. Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's decision, Mr Sawyers referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A Fair Go item reported on the New Zealand Industrial Fuel Duty Agency (NZIFDA), a business set up to obtain refunds, on behalf of eligible customers, for excise duty placed on off-road fuel usage in some instances. A former employee of NZIFDA criticised the business and the person who ran it. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the person who ran the business, that the item was inaccurate and misleading and used ‘loaded’ language to suggest wrongdoing. The item was clearly framed from the perspective of the former employee, her comments were clearly her personal opinion, the complainant was given a reasonable opportunity to give a response, and his response was fairly included in the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item used the word “gay” in the context of reporting on influx of homosexual couples from Australia getting married in New Zealand as civil unions are not legally recognised in Australia – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – “gay” is a commonly accepted and widely used term for homosexuals – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 135 /94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (Rt Hon HELEN CLARK) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – programme contained teaser for item in upcoming episode – teaser about a teenage boy who had committed suicide and the events leading up to his death involving two girls – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – girls not identifiable beyond those who already knew of the events – teaser did not draw any conclusions about their motives or character – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Wednesday 17 February 2010. At the end of the programme, a teaser was shown for an upcoming item that was going to be screened in the following week’s episode....