Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item discussed the case of an elderly woman who bought an expensive vacuum cleaner from a door-to-door salesman – item included an interview with the door-to-door salesman and a representative from the Consumers’ Institute – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and the action taken subsequently to correct an inaccuracy was insufficient Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – action taken by the broadcaster to correct the inaccuracy was sufficient – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item gave the company and salesman an adequate opportunity to respond – host’s comment did not imply companies that sold expensive vacuum cleaners were dishonest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

This decision has been amended to remove the name of the complainant. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item on financial management and an adult products business – complainant participated in item on the condition that she would not be identifiable – exterior shots of her home were broadcast – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, and fairness FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant identified despite agreement of anonymity – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TVNZ broadcast an item called “Dollars and Sense” in Sunday on 27 November 2005 at 7. 30pm, and re-screened it on 4 December at 10am....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – claimed that product leaves timber vulnerable to borer or rot – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – two statements in breach of Standard 5 – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Osmose as manufacturer of TimberSaver – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $1,500 Payment of costs to the Crown $1,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on TV One on One News at 6pm on 12 July 2005 stated that TimberSaver (also known as T1. 2), a timber product being used on homes in the wake of the “leaky homes” scandal, was vulnerable to borer or rot....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Celebrity Treasure Island – question posed to contestant concerning “famous lesbian” – complainant alleged use of word in this context was breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsDeclined to determine – section 11(a) Broadcasting Act 1989 – isolated use of word “lesbian” does not raise issue of broadcasting standards – complaint trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Celebrity Treasure Island is a show in which New Zealand celebrities are “castaways” on a tropical island and vie for prizes for their nominated charities. [2] In an episode screened on 8 August 2004 at 7:30 pm, one of the contests was a quiz based around a “fishy” theme....

Complaint Newstalk ZB – Discussion about leaky building syndrome – caller "Graham" referred to two leaking problems with his new home in Newlands – complainant developer in Newlands – only one leaky building problem – "Graham" an employee of TRN – unfair Findings Principle 5 – complainant neither identified nor identifiable – not referred to – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaky building syndrome was one of the topics discussed on Newstalk ZB broadcast in Wellington on the morning of 18 September 2002. A caller "Graham" described leaky building problems with his bathroom and his deck in his new home in a development in the Wellington suburb of Newlands. [2] Kingdom Residential Housing Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair....

ComplaintEureka – Royal Commission on Genetic Modification – GE Free rally – rally participants interviewed – approach assured participants rejected Commission findings – views misrepresented – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 5 – interviewees not treated unfairly – no uphold Principle 6 – factual reports and opinion distinguished – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with one of the Commissioners from the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, and comments from participants at a GE-Free rally, were included in the edition of Eureka broadcast on National Radio on 9 September 2001 and repeated on 10 September. Eureka is a science magazine programme broadcast weekly. [2] Jon Carapiet complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme’s approach was unbalanced as the item sought to represent those at the rally as ill-informed. Consequently, he said, their views were misrepresented....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Waitangi: What Really Happened – docu-drama about events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Waitangi: What Really Happened was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 6 February 2011. The programme was a docu-drama following the events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Farming Show – host told anecdote about his experience at The Waterfront Bar & Bistro in Queenstown – claimed he was refused service after having a “couple of beers” and commented that it was “poor form” on the part of the bar – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host’s comments were inappropriate – host abused his position by allegedly threatening the bar staff with bad publicity and then following through by airing a personal grievance to enact revenge on a named business – business had no opportunity to defend itself – The Waterfront Bar & Bistro treated unfairly – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-108–110:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Inc, Armstrong and daughters and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-108–110719. 35 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-018 Dated the 5th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAEWYN CLARK of Manurewa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made statements regarding the death of convicted murderer Antonie Dixon – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Dixon’s family did not take part in the item and were not referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 8. 42am on Thursday 5 February 2009, the programme’s presenters reported that convicted murderer Antonie Dixon had died in jail. The following exchange took place between the presenters: Host 1: Now in news just to hand, we can confirm that Antonie Dixon is the prisoner who has died at Paremoremo Prison....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go was unfair to the fencing contractor investigated. The Authority found that the fencing contractor was not treated fairly, due to the way he was set-up to be interviewed (under the guise of calling him to a job) and because he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him in the programme. The Authority also found that the inclusion of information about the contractor’s past which had a criminal element was unfair as it was not relevant to the issues being investigated in this item and contributed to an unfairly negative impression of him. The accuracy complaint was not upheld as the item did not mislead or present inaccurate information, and the balance standard did not apply as the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Sean Plunket on his talkback programme regarding Christians and Christianity. While Mr Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Equally, the comments were unlikely to encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians. The Authority found callers in to the programme were treated fairly by Mr Plunket, given they had willingly phoned in to provide views on a discussion in which Mr Plunket was criticising the Christian faith, and were given the opportunity to express their own views. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Violence, Accuracy, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the complainant and breached his and his employee’s privacy, and that the item was inaccurate and lacked balance. Neither RZ nor his employee was identifiable during the footage and they were not participants, or referred to, in the item. The item was also sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. Comments in the item that the complainant alleged were inaccurate were clearly opinion and analysis and thus not subject to the accuracy standard, and the item was not otherwise misleading....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of 3D investigated alleged bullying within the New Zealand Fire Service, particularly within volunteer brigades. The episode relied in part on testimony from particular individuals who alleged they had been victims of bullying, and in part on a report, which purported to identify bullying as a significant problem within NZFS. NZFS challenged the credibility of the report and argued that the programme breached the accuracy, fairness and balance standards. The Authority did not uphold the complaint. It found that the programme clearly stated there were questions about the status of the report – which in any event only formed part of the basis of the story – so viewers would not have been misled....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday Morning contained two items on the historical relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa: Counterpoint contained a discussion of the relationship between Israel and South Africa and of Israel's arms industry; and an interview with an anti-apartheid activist discussed this topic as well as modern-day Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast breached the controversial issues standard, as no alternative perspective was presented either within the broadcast, in any proximate broadcast or in other media. The Authority declined to uphold the remainder of the complaints because: the statements complained of were either expressions of opinion or matters the Authority cannot determine and therefore were not subject to the accuracy standard; the statements did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the programme did not treat any individual or organisation unfairly....

In a segment on the Mike Hosking Breakfast programme, the host interviewed the Prime Minister about the Government’s decision to extend the Level 3 lockdown restrictions on Auckland in August 2020. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It recognised the value of robust political discourse in the media and the role of media in holding to account those in positions of power. Overall, it found no harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention. While some may have found Mr Hosking’s approach and comments distasteful, they did not go beyond what could be expected of an interview of this nature. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Children’s Interests...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Newshub reported on ‘cash for job’ work scams in New Zealand. The reporter described the experiences of one worker, who alleged he had been exploited by his employer and told to pay $30,000 for his job as a technician at an internet café. GL, who was named and whose photo was shown during the item, was said to have ‘demanded’ $15,000 from the worker as part of the scam. GL complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair, because he did not demand or receive any payment from the worker and he was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him....