Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: Leaving the Exclusive Brethren – experiences of five people who had left the Exclusive Brethren – allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed – no offensive intrusion – not upheld 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 the Exclusive Brethren – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A documentary entitled Inside New Zealand: Leaving the Exclusive Brethren was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 18 August 2005. The programme followed the experiences of five people who had left the Exclusive Brethren....

Complaint Flipside – item looking into cheating at Universities – comment that Asian learning cultures rewarded copying while punished in New Zealand – inaccurate – denigrated Asian culture Findings Standard 5 – comments a mixture of facts and opinion – no inaccurate facts Standard 6 – genuine opinion – not unfair This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Cheating among students at universities was considered in a segment of Flipside broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm on Tuesday 1 October 2002. Dr David Brook, Deputy Vice Chancellor at the Auckland University of Technology, was one of the people interviewed. [2] Daphne Wong complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that Dr Brook’s comment that copying was rewarded in Asian cultures but punished in New Zealand, was untrue and denigrated an entire culture....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with man about unproven sexual abuse when a child in the Order of St John of God – man paid $30,000 by Order on condition of confidentiality – unbalanced – unfair to Order FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – item made clear that the man’s views had been contested by Brother and there was no court case – Church spokesperson given reasonable opportunity to challenge his account – did not do so – man’s credibility left to viewer to assess – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Patrick" was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 19 June 2002....

Complaint"Trial and Error" – 20/20 – David Bain murder trial – Milton Weir defamation action against Joe Karam – Weir’s admission that Bain jury was misled – inadvertent mistake – not first time admitted – unfair, unbalanced, impartial to present otherwise FindingsStandards G4 and G6 – impression given that first time mistake admitted – no evidence that mistake anything other then genuine – implication that Mr Weir might have intentionally misled jury – dramatic choice of language – interview with Assistant Commissioner of Police and reference to Police Complaints Authority’s report inadequate to provide balance/undo suggestion that mistake might have been intentional – uphold Standards G4 and G6 – aspects of complaint regarding evidential significance of mistake not a matter for the Broadcasting Standards Authority – decline to determine Standard G16 – standard concerned with the general viewing public – no uphold Standard G20 – reasonable efforts made to include Mr Weir in…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on woman who sought a refund for baby items purchased from the complainant’s business – reporter approached complainant for an interview at her place of business – footage and audio recording of the conversation was broadcast – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no previous attempts were made to obtain comment before door-stepping the owners at their place of business – covert filming and recording of conversation meant that the owners were not properly informed of the nature of their participation as required by guideline 6c – owners specifically stated that they did not want to be filmed or recorded – tone of programme was negative towards owners and their position was not adequately presented – owners treated unfairly – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not even-handed as required by…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989High Country Rescue – profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died – made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – footage of the complainant was not broadcast and so no disclosure of information obtained through an intrusion with the complainant’s interest in seclusion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under various standards, including discrimination and denigration, about an item on Seven Sharp on 28 September 2021. The item reported on employment issues relating to the COVID-19 vaccine. Following an interview with an employment lawyer, the presenters discussed a hypothetical dinner party where a guest turned out to be unvaccinated. The complainants were concerned about the treatment of people that were not vaccinated, who do not amount to a relevant section of society for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. The remainder of the complaint reflected the complainants’ personal views and/or was unrelated to the broadcast. In all the circumstances (including scientific consensus around the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic), the Authority considered it should not determine the complaints....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-138 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G RAWSON of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – items reported that the Ministry of Social Development had hired a “prominent drag queen to motivate staff” – reported that the National Party believed taxpayers’ money was being wasted – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – items implied MSD had hired a drag artist as a motivational speaker – MSD had really hired Edward Cowley as a professional facilitator – misleading and inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to MSD and to Mr Cowley – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into Standards 5 and 6 Order Section 16(4) – payment of $2500 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Cruise FM – host interviewed a member of the local district council and made comments that were critical of, and threatening towards, other council members – host also made comments about a rival radio station and, by implication, a staff member there – news item made claims about Deputy Mayor – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host made comments that were personally abusive and threatening – Mayor Neil Sinclair, Deputy Mayor Jenny Shattock, named councillor, Classic Hits and its staff treated unfairly – host’s comments about other council members and staff were brief, general criticisms mainly related to professional capacity and as such they were not treated unfairly – host abused his position by using the airwaves to discredit council members and staff at…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-139:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-139 PDF295. 26 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-015:New Zealand Police and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-015 PDF2. 1 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Summary In an interview broadcast after the jury announced its verdict in the trial of Scott Watson, Olivia Hope’s father appealed for information which would help trace the bodies of the two victims. The item was broadcast on 11 September 1999 beginning at 6. 00pm. Ms van Drunen complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that Mr Hope had "blatantly accused" the parents of Scott Watson and the family of being part of a cover-up in the disappearance of the two young people. She suggested that as Mr Watson had been found guilty without a single piece of hard evidence, it was possible that he did not know what had happened to them. RNZ responded that it found it hard to conclude that what was said contained an accusation of a cover-up....

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....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....