Search Rapua

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-514 PDF428. 08 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – three items discussing proposal by Wellington City Council to scrap free parking – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Principles 5 and 6Principle 5 (fairness) – Wellington City Council treated unfairly – upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – items left the impression that the Council was considering scrapping free weekend parking – inaccurate – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 20 April 2007, the presenter of Radio New Zealand National’s Morning Report programme, Sean Plunket, commented that the Wellington City Council was “looking at scrapping its free weekend and evening parking in the city”. He said: Retailers are furious....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 43/95 Dated the 31st day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HOUSING (Hon Murray McCully) Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

SummaryLindsay Perigo in "The Politically Incorrect Show" broadcast on Radio Pacific on 10 May 1998 between 10. 00–10. 20am stated that he was shocked to have been told that a named lecturer at the University of Auckland had forbidden her graduate economics class to invite Sir Roger Douglas or anyone from the Business Roundtable to speak to the class. The University of Auckland, through the Office of the Vice Chancellor, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks breached the good taste standard, were inaccurate, unfair and taken out of context. Radio Pacific responded first by noting that the show was unashamedly subjective, and promoted libertarian ideas....

Complaint Sunday – item on Maui’s dolphins and introduction of set net ban – unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – views of those opposed to the set net ban balanced against those in support – issues raised about treatment of complainants best assessed under Standard 6Standard 6 (preparation) – no evidence of assurances about scope of programme – not unfair – not upheldStandard 6 (presentation) – complainants’ position presented out of context – failure to mention alternative management plan unfair to complainants – upheld OrdersBroadcast of statement $2000 contribution towards complainants’ legal costsThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item about Maui’s dolphins explained that the species was in danger of extinction. It described set net fishing as the “single largest threat to [the] animal’s continued existence” and discussed the imminent Government ban on set net fishing....

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…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 133/94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P HEATHER COSH of Taumarunui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 45/94 Decision No: 46/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PETA BROWN of Port Ohope Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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....

ComplaintCrimebusters – piss and shit – offensive language – associating faeces with stolen food – sensational – identified alleged thief who soiled himself – unfair –alleged shoplifter had been humiliated by advising that he had soiled himself – Standard 6 and Guideline 6f – upheld by broadcaster Findings(1) Standard 1 – colloquial – context – borderline – no uphold (2) Action taken on Standard 6, Guideline 6f – action taken insufficient – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Crimebusters looked at shoplifting and some security operations to catch shoplifters. One segment dealt with a man in a supermarket caught hiding two cans of ham in his trousers. It was reported that he had soiled himself when questioned by the shop’s security staff, and the evidence was found on the cans when they were recovered....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 102/95 Decision No: 103/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEDIAWOMEN of Wellington and LINDA McDOUGALL of London Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Coast FM News reported that Zero Commission ‘has been making low ball offers’ to shareholders of various companies. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that Zero Commission and its shareholders were treated unfairly as no opportunity was given to respond to the claims or the negative impression created. The minority did not consider the item was unfair as Zero Commission could reasonably expect some commentary from time to time that it would not like or agree with. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the use of the term ‘low ball’ was inaccurate as this was a subjective term, not a point of fact. The controversial issues standard was not applicable because the item focused squarely on one company, not a controversial issue of public importance....

SummaryThe relationship between a Department of Corrections employee and a former inmate, which was the subject of a later investigation by the department and resulted in the resignation of the employee, was the focus of items on 20/20, broadcast by TV3 on 11 October and 15 November 1998. It was also the subject of a bulletin opener and a news item on 3 News on 10 November 1998. Mr Wallace, father of the employee, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) that the identification of his son in the commentary, and the footage accompanying it, represented harassment and a gross invasion of his son’s privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-075 Decision No: 1997-076 Decision No: 1997-077 Decision No: 1997-078 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by GEOFFREY PRENTICE of Auckland and GERARD ROBERTS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 99/95 Decision No: 100/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by M B of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....