Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has upheld one aspect of a complaint from three complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthic Vichar, broadcast on community radio station, Planet FM. During the programme, host Kuldip Singh made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding use of grant money and cheating or ‘unjust’ behaviour at a kabaddi tournament. The Authority found that the host’s comments reflected negatively on the complainants and as such, they should have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Authority did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. The Authority acknowledged the limited resources available to the broadcaster, but reminded it of its obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1989 to receive and consider formal complaints through a proper process, including where the broadcast subject to complaint is in a language other than English....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance. The Authority upheld the complaint from the tenant that the programme breached her privacy and that she had been treated unfairly. The broadcaster could not demonstrate that the complainant had given consent to appear in the programme, and she had made her objections known to both the broadcaster and the production company before this third repeat broadcast, which occurred four years after the filming took place. Upheld: Fairness, PrivacyNot Upheld: Accuracy, Children’s InterestsOrder: Section 13(1)(d) – compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000Introduction[1] An episode of The Claim Game, a reality series about insurance claims, profiled a claim involving a house fire, where the tenant did not have contents insurance....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

ComplaintHolmes – item regarding registration of Kopukairoa as wāhi tapu – examined the concerns of four landowners affected by the registration – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 4 – failed to present range of views – unbalanced – uphold Standard 5 – factual inaccuracies – partial – uphold Standard 6 – Iwi dealt with unfairly – uphold OrderBroadcast of statementPublish statement in Bay of Plenty Times This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The concern of four Pakeha landowners on Kopukairoa, because of the registration of the mountain in the Bay of Plenty as wāhi tapu, was dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 18 November 2002. The item included interviews with the four landowners and Mr Toni Paraire who, it was said, represented the views of the local Māori who registered the wāhi tapu....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an illegal advertising campaign for Goji Juice – product was being marketed to the Tongan community as being a cure for numerous diseases – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue was the marketing of Goji Juice – broadcaster not required to seek comment from manufacturer or from people who endorsed the product – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not exhaust every alternative legitimate way of obtaining Namoe Sau’s comment before arranging door-stepping interview (guideline 6b) – used deception to obtain her comment without making sufficient attempts to obtain the material by other means (guideline 6c) – broadcaster treated Ms Sau unfairly – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm…...

ComplaintOne News – item reported the issue of a safety advisory notice for an oil heater sold through the Warehouse – following item reported death of two girls in fire thought to have been caused by gas heater – complaint that items unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – each item balanced – not upheld Standard 5 – each item accurate – not upheld Standard 6 – juxtaposition of items created misleading impression – unfair – upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The issue of a safety advisory notice about the Brio Five Fin oil heater, sold through The Warehouse stores, was reported in an item broadcast on One News on 30 August 2003 beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One....

SummaryA nightmare housemoving experience was related by a woman featured in a programme entitled "My House, My Castle" broadcast on TV2 on 19 July 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The programme was previewed in the days preceding the broadcast. Michael Bott, on behalf of Brittons Housemovers (Wellington) Ltd, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that footage showing a truck belonging to the company was used to illustrate the "housemoving story from hell". In fact, Brittons Housemovers had had no connection with the move, he wrote. The company cited a number of broadcasting standards which it contended were breached by the programme and the promos. In its response, TVNZ explained that the shots of the housemoving truck were archival shots which had been used to illustrate the story. It maintained that the company could not have been identified from that footage....

ComplaintHavoc and Newsboy’s Sell Out Tour 2 – allegations about public relations companies – offensive language – inaccurate – unbalanced, biased and unfair FindingsStandard G1 – subsumed Standard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – serious allegations made – no acknowledgment that they were contestable – uphold Standard G6 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A sequence broadcast during the satirical programme Havoc and Newsboy’s Sell Out Tour 2 on TV2 on 15 August 2000 beginning at 9. 30pm, contained an interview with political activist Nicky Hagar. Mr Hagar made a number of claims about the public relations industry. Among references to various public relations companies, Mr Hagar named Hill & Knowlton, an international company operating in New Zealand, as being responsible for putting a favourable spin on America’s involvement in the Gulf War....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 158/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LLOYD MINCHINGTON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Illegal New Zealand – episode looked at the illegal trading of guns in New Zealand – reporter used hidden camera to record footage at a gun show in Auckland – footage included conversation between the undercover reporter and complainant – complainant’s face not pixellated – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfairly presented complainant in a negative light – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Illegal New Zealand was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Thursday 9 July 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about New Zealand’s dog breeds and breeders’ ethics regarding inbreeding – reporter visited one breeder at her home – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to comment – she should have been informed that the programme would broadcast specific allegations against her – reporter’s approach was unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 29 March 2009, investigated the state of New Zealand’s pedigree dog breeds and breeding ethics in response to an earlier programme which looked at the health of Britain’s purebred dogs. [2] Included in the item was comment from a dog-owner, Chris, who owned a bulldog....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-182 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-112 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GREGORY SHAW of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-130 Decision No: 1996-131 Decision No: 1996-132 Dated the 10th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NICK DRURY (2) of Rotorua and C J DAISLEY of Rotorua Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 42/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CASINO CONTROL AUTHORITY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO 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 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...