Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-127 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK KEARNEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Mike Hosking regarding Director General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield. Mr Hosking said Dr Bloomfield ‘lied to the Select Committee’ and was a ‘liar’. The Authority found the accuracy and fairness standards were not breached as the comments were distinguishable as the opinion of the presenter and they did not result in Dr Bloomfield being treated unfairly. Given Dr Bloomfield’s high profile position, he can reasonably expect to be the subject of robust scrutiny. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness  ...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 140/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND ON AIR Broadcaster RADIO LIBERTY NETWORK J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-102 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS NORMAN of Wellington Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LTD J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

A segment on AM interviewed the complainant regarding his documentary, Milked, which focused on the environmental impact of the dairy industry. Following the interview, the presenter interviewed DairyNZ CEO, Dr Tim Mackle, on the same topic. The complainant stated the broadcast breached the fairness standard as he was not informed of Dr Mackle’s involvement and he was not given a right to respond following the interview. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the nature of the broadcast did not materially deviate from what was consented to. The Authority also found the interviews were conducted fairly and the audience would not have been left with a negative impression of the complainant. Not Upheld: Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 88/94 Dated the 29th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MANUFACTURING AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS UNION INC Broadcaster CAPITAL FM LIMITED of Wellington I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

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....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player. A doctor from ACC said it may well have been unethical for a doctor to use finance as a barrier to treatment....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two items covering the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – first item contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court describing his attack – second item included the prosecutor saying the word “fucking” three times – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards Findings13 July item Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of attack given by Mr Weatherston were explicit – item should have been preceded by a warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning – broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item contained explicit details of violence – broadcaster did not exercise sufficient care and discretion – upheld Standard 6 (fairness)…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-049 Decision No: 1997-050 Dated the 21st day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CAPITAL COAST HEALTH (2) Broadcasters RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED and THE RADIO NETWORK LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – update on a previous item about a used Ferrari – item reported that Continental Car Services Ltd had “refused to hand over” a statement of compliance for the vehicle – item implied that CCS was engaging in restrictive trade practices – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – TVNZ upheld two points as inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained several inaccurate and misleading statements – item as a whole was also inaccurate – action taken by TVNZ insufficient – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to CCS and Mr Pitt – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,283. 00 Payment of costs to the Crown $2500. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host interviewed Professor of Māori history about 21 hui selecting a ‘Māori’ flag to be flown on Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day – both host and interviewee commented that the process was a waste of time and money – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance – One News item the previous evening presented alternative viewpoints which provided balance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments reinforced negative stereotypes but did not reach threshold necessary for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments about Tino Rangatiratanga flag being one of division were clearly the host’s opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness to Māori dealt…...

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item discussed the assault on convicted murderer William Bell by fellow prison inmates – presenter made a statement regarding the assault – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s statement was sarcastic – made clear to viewers that neither host supported violence against prisoners – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people referred to were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....