Search Rapua

An item on 1 News reported on clashes between mourners and Israeli police at the funeral of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was misleading by implying the locations of Abu Akleh’s death and her funeral were in Israel and by impliedly ‘exonerating’ Israel for its police force’s actions at the funeral and for Abu Akleh’s death. While the item did not specify the city or country where the events took place, the Authority found the generic place descriptors used combined with references to ‘Israeli police’ and ‘Israeli forces’ being present would not have misled the audience to believe the events occurred in Israel. It further found the broadcast did not impliedly ‘exonerate’ Israel. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

L M Loates was Acting Chairperson in S R Maling's absence. SummaryThe series The New Zealand Wars examined the reasons for, and the outcome of, the battles between groups of Maori and Pakeha particularly during the period 1850–1870. The programme was presented by Professor James Belich and was based on his book with the same name. The series was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on five consecutive Monday evenings between 8 June and 6 July 1998. Mr Haggett complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the series among other matters presented "beliefs" as fact, and that it was biased and racist in suggesting that the "innocent" Maori was butchered by "an evil white man". Emphasising that the series was the "authored" work of an eminent historian whose views had been captured accurately in the series, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News ­– item on Big Wednesday Lotto draw – presenter stated that ticket holders had a one in 2. 7 million chance of winning – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item technically inaccurate – upholding the complaint would place an unjustified limitation on the broadcaster’s freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item, broadcast at 6pm on Wednesday 10 June 2009, reported on a Lotto “Big Wednesday” draw that had jackpotted to twenty million dollars. The presenter introduced the item by saying: In just over an hour, some lucky punter could be twenty million dollars richer in what would be the country’s largest ever Lotto win. Big Wednesday’s jackpotted to include twenty million dollars cash, there’s only a one in 2....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary An item reporting on the result of a One Network News/Colmar Brunton political poll was broadcast on One Network News on TV One 21 June 1999 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm. Mr Helm complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was misleading and inaccurate in its interpretation of the poll results. He said that the item incorrectly linked voter support to the potential composition of a future Parliament. He said that the interpretation was based on a wrong assumption that the poll results, if reflected in a general election, would lead to proportional, or very nearly proportional, representation. TVNZ responded that the item was an accurate indication of political preferences at the time of polling....

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with eye-witnesses – failure to observe standards consistent with maintenance of law and orderFindings(1) Standard G5 – no prejudice to any proceedings or disrespect for principles of law – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided during period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Waitara couple who had witnessed some of the events which resulted in the shooting by police of Stephen Wallace was interviewed on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 2 May 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. I B Owen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was tantamount to "trial by television" and breached the requirement for broadcasters to observe standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-079 Dated the 26th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by TRINA PIETERSMA of Taupo Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-106 Dated the 21st day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-166 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARY KENNEDY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on New Zealand protestor’s decision to travel to Gaza with his son as part of a humanitarian aid flotilla – commented on recent Israeli commando raid on another aid flotilla – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on one man – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Close Up was an unclassified current affairs programme – item would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

ComplaintHow’s Life? – one panellist said to have encouraged people aged 13–14 years to have sex and to ignore parents and the law – complaint that comments offensive and unfair to children. Findings Panellist said questioners were responsible in seeking advice – did not encourage lawbreaking – suggested seeking parental advice – other panellists said that questioners should not have sex Standard 1 – not upheld Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm and repeated at 9. 00 the following morning, featured a panel of local celebrities who answered questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast at 9. 00am on 29 September 2003 considered a question from two young teenagers who asked whether they should have sex....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – exchange between reporter and Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, had been recorded prior to a scheduled interview – allegedly in breach of Dr Cullen’s privacy, unfair, and in breach of law and order and programme information standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – standard has no application on this occasion – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts – no interest in solitude and seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Dr Cullen – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintEdwards at Large – interview with complainant – host a media adviser to Prime Minister – programme funded by NZ On Air of which host’s wife was a board member – questions about these issues raised in Parliament by complainant – complainant alleged the item unbalanced and partial – broadcaster upheld complaint that programme was partial – written apology – complainant dissatisfied with both extent of complaint upheld and action taken FindingsStandard 4 – balanced debate – no uphold Action taken – letter included TVNZ’s Chief Executive’s explanation – sufficient – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Mr Hide MP was interviewed on Edwards at Large about some questions he had asked in Parliament concerning the funding of the programme and the linkages between the host, Dr Brian Edwards, his wife Judy Callingham, the Labour Party, and NZ On Air....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with father of escaped prisoner – used words “arsehole” and “bugger” – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A father whose son had escaped from prison was interviewed in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 22 April 2004. The father, whose home had been burgled by his son on at least three occasions, appealed to his son to give himself up. During the interview, the father used the word “arsehole” and also used the word “bugger” at least three times. Complaint [2] Gary Welch and Don Campbell each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word “arsehole” was unacceptable and in breach of the standard requiring good taste and decency....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq, shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – broadcast was in the public interest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on One News at 6pm on 30 September 2004 showed video footage of Mr Kenneth Bigley, a British hostage in Iraq. The video showed Mr Bigley shackled in a cage pleading for help from the British Government. [2] The introduction to the piece indicated that the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had shifted position slightly and hinted that some contact with the hostage takers might be attempted. Complaint [3] J M Copland complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male nudity – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on teenagers FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – not relevant – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 23 April 2002 at 9. 40pm on TV One included a scene with a full frontal view of a naked man. [2] Graham Jacobsen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was too explicit, was not excused by the broadcast of a warning, and breached standards relating to teenager’s viewing interests....

ComplaintTaste New Zealand – profiles of some food entrepreneurs included one on Ron Hubbard – did not refer to his membership of the Food and Nutritional Advisory Committee and that Committee’s attitude to soy – unbalanced FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – Standard 4 – item did not deal with controversial issue – standard not relevant – no uphold – advise that future marginal complaints may be considered vexatious and trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Taste New Zealand is an entertainment series about the food industry. The episode broadcast at 8. 00pm on TV One on 25 September 2002 presented some profiles about a number of successful food entrepreneurs. Ron Hubbard of Hubbard Foods Ltd was one of the entrepreneurs featured. [2] Richard James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced....

Complaint60 Minutes – Dover Samuels – Police investigation found insufficient evidence to prosecute – inaccurate to state he was "cleared" of the charges FindingsStandard G1 – inaccurate use of the word "cleared’ – does not mean "insufficient evidence" – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A 60 Minutes item, broadcast on 17 December 2000 on TV One at 7. 35pm, looked into allegations made against Dover Samuels MP, which had been forwarded to the Police by the Prime Minister. Near the end of the item, the reporter stated that Mr Samuels had been "cleared" of previous allegations investigated by the Police. Peter Low complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that TV One had been inaccurate in using the word "cleared". Mr Low explained that the Police had used the term "insufficient evidence"....