Search Rapua

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement – profiled an ex-member, X, who claimed that she made substantial donations to the church – included hidden camera footage of church service – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – X was identifiable and item disclosed private facts about her – however, X was a willing participant and there is insufficient evidence to show she withdrew her consent to the broadcast – item did not breach X’s privacy – Bishop and Pastor were identifiable in hidden camera footage but did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public –…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, host Mike Hosking offered his views on the incident of Prime Minister John Key's repeated pulling of a café waitress' ponytail. He described the waitress' motivations for speaking out as 'selfish' and 'a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks'. The Authority upheld complaints that this was unfair to the waitress. While public figures can expect criticism and robust scrutiny, in the Authority's view the waitress was not a public figure. The format of the 'final word' segment did not allow for a response from the waitress so she was unable to defend herself in this context. The Authority did not uphold the remainder of the complaints. Upheld: FairnessNot Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationNo OrderIntroduction[1] In April 2015 there was public disclosure of some conduct of the Prime Minister....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two complaints about Heather du Plessis-Allan’s use of the term ‘leeches’ to describe the Pacific Islands during Wellington Mornings with Heather du Plessis-Allan were upheld, under both the good taste and decency and discrimination and denigration standards. The Authority recognised the important role talkback radio plays in fostering open discourse and debate in society. However, the Authority found Ms du Plessis-Allan’s comments went beyond what is acceptable in a talkback environment, considering the use of language that was inflammatory, devalued the reputation of Pasifika people within New Zealand and had the potential to cause widespread offence and distress....

Complaints under sections 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on the alleged practice of women offering sex in exchange for taxi rides – showed nightlife footage of central Auckland including shots of a number of young women – reporter interviewed taxi drivers and stated that one taxi driver had allegedly accepted sex in exchange for a taxi ride – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and violence FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Ms Smith and taxi driver were not identifiable – Ms Gardner was identifiable but the item did not disclose any private facts about her – the footage of women was used as visual wallpaper for the story and clearly was not suggesting that the women were associated with the practice reported on, which was reinforced by a clarification broadcast the following night…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – items investigated complaint against The Battery Clinic and its manager, the complainant, relating to a system developed to extend the life of batteries in older hybrid vehicles – experts expressed concerns about the safety of the system – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Fair Go had a sufficient basis for presenting the view that the system developed by the complainant was potentially dangerous – complainant provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to claims and to defend his invention, and his perspective was fairly presented in the broadcasts – very high public interest in reporting on matters that have the potential to impact on public safety – overall, complainant and the Battery Clinic were treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccuracies related to mechanical and engineering matters outside the Authority’s expertise…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Punjab – hosts and callers discussed controversy surrounding charges of electoral fraud against a prominent member of the Indian community – caller talked about complaints laid against the police investigating the electoral fraud – allegedly inaccurate and unfair to police FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – hosts did not make any unqualified statements of fact – caller’s comments clearly opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Radio Punjab, a talkback programme, was broadcast on Planet FM at 5pm on Tuesday 12 October 2010. During the programme, the hosts invited callers to comment on controversy surrounding charges of electoral fraud against a prominent member of the Indian community....

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....

Summary Some dissatisfaction expressed by three purchasers of cars from Saevue Motors in New Plymouth was considered in an item broadcast on Holmes, between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 11 December 1997. The possibility of odometer tampering was raised. Mr Rawlings complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and unfair. He noted that there had been no effort to gauge the extent of the problem among the company's total customer base, and he claimed that the company was portrayed as a "monster". On the basis that the information contained in the item justified the investigation, TVNZ reported that it had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the company to participate in the programme. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and Tonight – allegations of gang-related bullying at Taradale High School – item reported that petition given to school board by students – reported that petition was against bullying and sought to have students responsible removed – One News referred to troublemaking students as “Black Power bullies” – Tonight referred to them as “Black Power babies” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interestsFindingsMr Calcinai’s complaintStandard 5 (accuracy) – item implied that Board of Trustees took no action until presented with students’ petition – inaccurate – petition did not request board to remove students referred to as “Black Power babies” – inaccurate – situation described as “bullying” – was in fact two conflicting parties – not made clear in item – inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to school’s reputation to suggest gang-related…...

ComplaintPrivate Investigators – filming of Graeme Lee – privacy – unauthorised filming and broadcast – highly offensive and objectionable – unfair Findings (1) Privacy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – majority – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Private Investigators was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 July 2000. Private Investigators is a series about the activities of private investigators in New Zealand. Hon Reverend Graeme Lee, a gospel minister and former Member of Parliament, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached his privacy. He also complained to TVNZ that the broadcast was unfair to him. The programme included footage of Mr Lee arriving for a prayer meeting at a house where a private investigator was in the process of recovering goods from its occupants....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed fashion designers Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper, who were involved in a High Court case about their branding – reported that Tamsin Cooper's silk velvet coats, labelled as 100% silk, had been tested and the fabric was “not 100% silk, but mostly viscose” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Tamsin Cooper – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on 3 December 2007 at 7. 30pm on TV One, discussed a High Court action involving fashion designers Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported that a 40-year-old man had been accused of knowingly infecting people with HIV – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – identifiable to limited group of people who had seen the website or the photos – allegation of criminal behaviour not a private fact – HIV-positive status normally a private fact but public interest defence applied – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high level of public interest especially in alerting those who could identify the man – guideline relating to discrimination and denigration not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast at 7pm on TV One on 15 May 2009, was introduced as follows: What kind of person knowingly infects lovers with the HIV virus?...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an item on Story, an actor approached four different real estate agencies (Ray White, LJ Hooker, Barfoot & Thompson and Harcourts) and asked agents to sell him properties for investment prior to auction and at a lower price, which it was alleged would be in breach of the industry code. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that one of the Story presenters had a conflict of interest because of her family connections to Barfoot & Thompson, which resulted in a breach of standards. The Authority is not in a position to determine whether such a conflict existed, but in any case, the alleged conflict did not manifest as a breach of the broadcasting standards nominated....

ComplaintClassic Hits – news items – privacy – complainant named in relation to theft charge – name suppression granted after broadcast FindingsPrinciple 8 – tape retention inadequate Privacy – public facts – no uphold Principle 5 – broadcasts not incorrect – no unfairness – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A woman who had been charged with theft as an employee was named in news items broadcast on Classic Hits in Hamilton on 18 April and 2 May 2001. SF complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the news items broadcast on 18 April were incorrect and breached her privacy. TRN did not accept that the 18 April broadcast was incorrect. It noted that, at the time of the broadcasts, no name suppression order had been made by the court....