Search

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-016–018:Hon Sir Roger Douglas, Hon Richard Prebble and Rt Hon David Lange and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-016, 1991-017, 1991-018 PDF2. 98 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-029:Dewar and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-029 PDF476. 89 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-052:Collins and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-052 PDF521. 77 KB...

Complaint One News – interview with Chief Ombudsman about tax-payer funded sex-change operation where health bureaucracy acted unfairly – incorrect impression portrayed of Ombudsman’s decision, contrary to agreement before interview – field tape sought to assist preparation of complaint OrderOrder made to supply tape to Authority – section 12 Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION The Background An item on One News on 23 November 2000 reported on the case of Joanne Procter who was seeking a taxpayer-funded sex change operation. Her application had been approved by doctors at Waikato Hospital, but that decision had been overruled by the Health Funding Authority. She had taken her case to the Ombudsman, and the Chief Ombudsman ruled that she had been treated unfairly by the health bureaucracy. A brief comment from the Chief Ombudsman was included in the item....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An episode of This Town showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this encouraged cruelty to animals and was inappropriately rated G. While some viewers may have found the footage unpleasant, it was not unexpected or gratuitous as the subject matter was well signposted, and it highlighted the reality that we live in a society which eats meat and that animals must be killed and prepared in order for this to occur. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency Introduction [1] This Town, a documentary series about people living in small towns in New Zealand, profiled a group of duck hunters and showed footage of ducks being shot and then plucked and prepared for eating....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-070:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-070 PDF484. 44 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-175:Leitch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-175 PDF576. 5 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-042:Talbot and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-042 PDF695. 01 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-059:Auckland Women's Health Council Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-059 PDF485. 47 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-083:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-083 PDF350. 5 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-095:Edmunds and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-095 PDF846. 89 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-018:Shaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-018 PDF591. 45 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item introduced as “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” – about an undertaker whose practices were said to have offended some families – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – allegedly breached privacy of named undertakerFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (iii) – no intrusion in the nature of prying – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed not featured in complaint – complaint subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – partiality dealt with under fairness – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opportunities given to respond – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7. 00pm on 7 June 2005....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Work and Income computer error leading to disclosure of information about some Work and Income clients, and ramifications for beneficiaries – allegedly sensationalist, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – Ministry’s position not adequately presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained many inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Ministry and its chief executive – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast {1} An item on One News, broadcast on TV One on 27 November 2003, reported on a computer error made by Work and Income, a division of the Ministry of Social Development, which had caused some information about some Work and Income clients to be sent to other clients....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – downloadable episode of programme on TVNZ’s website – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaint Findings Not a broadcast within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Fair Go, broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2004, featured a property development company of which Kevin Davies was a director. [2] Mr Davies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd on 4 June 2004, alleging that the programme breached standards of balance, fairness and accuracy. [3] TVNZ declined to accept his complaint, as it was lodged outside the 20 working-day period specified in section 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintFair Go – item about identity theft – reporter obtained driver’s licence in someone else’s name – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 referred only – no encouragement to break the law – fraud and crime elements emphasised – high public interest and educative value – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the issue of identity theft. It featured a Fair Go reporter investigating the issue by obtaining a driver’s licence in someone else’s name. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 April 2003. [2] The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had failed to refer to the "criminal" actions of the reporter in obtaining the driver’s licence....

ComplaintTux Super Dog Challenge – bugger – offensive language FindingsS4(1)(a) – context relevant – not used in anger – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Tux Super Dog Challenge was a series which featured dogs and their owners competing over a range of physical tests in the high country. It was broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 00pm on Saturdays. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used during the episode on 18 November 2000. The use of the word "bugger" on two occasions, he said, was offensive. Acknowledging that the word might be offensive in some contexts, TVNZ said nevertheless it was used in a "friendly" way on this occasion. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Schwabe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintFair Go – rare breeds of sheep put in care as owner had cancer – organiser of care took two flocks herself – owner sought to recover sheep – care organiser believed she owned sheep – no contract – inaccurate – unclear – unbalanced – editing which distorted FindingsStandard G4 – inadequate opportunity to respond – uphold Standards G1, G3, G6, G7, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary David Tuart, an owner of some rare sheep species, required treatment for cancer. Dr Beverley Trowbridge, a fellow breeder of rare sheep species, arranged for his flocks to be distributed among other farmers. After Mr Tuart had been treated, Dr Trowbridge refused to return some of the sheep as she believed that she had been given ownership of them....

ComplaintOne News – offensive language – film title – 'shagged' FindingsStandard G2 – decline to determineCross ReferencesDecision No: 1999-163 and No: 2000-056 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An actor from the film "Austin Powers – The Spy who Shagged me" was interviewed on Holmes on 9 February 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The item included audio and video clips from the film and the word "shagged" appeared in a graphic containing the film’s title. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "shagged" was an "offensive, aggressive, macho anti-woman term" and should not have been promoted in an item which was "irresistible to all members of the family, including impressionable children"....