Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-057 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D S ROBERTS of Kaikoura TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryThe Human Body, episode one of an eight part series, was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Monday 28 September 1998. The next seven parts were broadcast at the same time on consecutive Monday evenings. The series, presented by Professor Robert Winston, showed viewers what happened to the human body from conception to death. Part One comprised an overview of the full series. Mr Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the series assumed that the human body was the product of evolution, it was unbalanced and misleading. He argued that the programme omitted the belief that all life was the product of creation by God. Mr Fox complained that the series was biased, as it did not acknowledge that evolution was a controversial issue. Many people, including many scientists, he said, accepted a worldview based on the veracity of the Bible....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – “On This Day” segment referred to financial markets crash in 1929, advances in the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, dedications to two famous monuments and birthdays of famous people – viewer feedback pointed out that it was also the date the New Zealand Declaration of Independence was signed in 1835 – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – segment did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – signing of the Declaration was referred to in viewer feedback – viewers would not have been misled by the omission of information about the Declaration in the segment – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and Sunday – items discussed suppressed evidence from the David Bain trial that had been released by the courts – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsOne News Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item reported on the evidence released by the court in a neutral manner – contained comment from Mr Bain’s supporter Mr Karam – reporter explained reasons for the evidence being suppressed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Sunday Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item contained comment from those individuals whose evidence had been suppressed – contained comment from Mr Karam – Mr Bain treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a Tui Brewery event, the “drought shout”, organised to boost morale of farmers struggling through droughts – allegedly in breach of liquor promotion standard Findings Standard 11 (liquor promotion) – broadcast amounted to liquor promotion but was not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 10 April 2008, looked at the impact of a drought from Waikato to Canterbury which had left the farming community struggling. In a bid to improve morale, the Tui Brewery and several agricultural suppliers put on a “drought shout” for farmers. [2] Part of the item looked at the story of one farmer and how he was struggling to cope with the drought....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion about the use of mobile devices in Parliament – brief interview with Act Party leader Rodney Hide – Mr Hide alleged he was treated unfairly in the preparation of the programme – said the reporter had obtained information through misrepresentation and deception – allegedly unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – alleged unfairness in preparation of programme not reflected in what was broadcast – programme not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Agenda, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 8 April 2006, discussed the use of mobile devices in Parliament. It noted that Standing Orders did not allow the use of mobile devices and laptops during Question Time....

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....

ComplaintOne News – Item on electricity pricing to large irrigation customers – aspects confusing and inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 – inaccurate – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Some farmers could see their bills rise more than a thousand percent" was a comment made in the introduction to an item about electricity price rises for large irrigation users in Canterbury. The item was included in One News broadcast on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on Sunday 29 September 2002. [2] Orion New Zealand Ltd, through its General Manager, Commercial (Roger Sutton) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment, among others, was inaccurate. The actual price increase in electricity charges, it said, was about 25%....

ComplaintHolmes – offensive language – presenter said "bugger the international media" – America’s Cup context FindingsStandard G2 – "bugger" not acceptable for common usage, but acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During an item about the America’s Cup on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 February 2000, the presenter said "bugger the international media". Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word "bugger" breached broadcasting standards which require the observance of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a highly charged America’s Cup campaign, the use of the word "bugger" did not breach broadcasting standards. It did not accept that its use carried the suggestion that the word was now acceptable for common usage. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Votes for Women: What Really Happened? (More or Less) – Sunday Theatre docudrama about New Zealand being the first country to give women the right to vote – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was a docudrama which legitimately employed dramatic licence to portray historical events – not a news, current affairs, or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Votes for Women: What Really Happened? (More or Less) was broadcast as part of TV One's Sunday Theatre timeslot on 24 June 2012. It was a docudrama based on historical facts about how women in New Zealand were given the right to vote in 1893....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported that 21,000 people had recently had their job-seeker benefits cut for travelling overseas. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item did not sufficiently include balancing comment. The item presented a number of comments in support of the beneficiaries, and it was clear the interviewees were offering their own opinion, which is not subject to standards of accuracy. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported that 21,000 people had recently had their job-seeker benefits cut for travelling overseas. The item featured Social Development Minister Paula Bennett explaining the rationale for restricting beneficiaries’ overseas travel and expressing disappointment with the latest statistics. The item also included comment from Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei and Auckland Action Against Poverty spokesman Alastair Russell....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....

A majority of the Authority has not upheld a complaint that comments made by the host of The Chase New Zealand, Paul Henry, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. When a contestant told Henry she would spend any prize money on a trip to the Taj Mahal in India, Henry said ‘You’ve got to be so careful what you eat,’ and that several of his friends had ‘exploded’ in the Taj Mahal, where it is ‘very hard to find a bathroom’. Later in the episode, Henry said, ‘$45,000, Taj Mahal, you can buy a lot of wet wipes with that. ’ The complainant said the comments had the potential to encourage discrimination against India and Indian people, through reinforcing harmful racial stereotypes that India (and, by association, Indian people) are dirty and unhygienic....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Asia Down Under and One News – One News item replayed significant footage screened on Asia Down Under earlier in the morning – programmes addressed issue of need for regulation of immigration consultants – profiled situation of Korean family, the Yangs, who were seeking permanent residency in New Zealand – outlined Yangs’ dealings with immigration consultancy firm Wasan International Co Ltd and its director Edward Kang – discussed high fees charged and lack of success in their applications to date – Asia Down Under team arrived unannounced at Wasan Ltd’s offices and requested interview with Mr Kang – used comments on wider issue from Immigration Minister Paul Swain – used comments from representative of New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment – Asia Down Under reported police and NZAMI investigations of Wasan Ltd – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance)…...

ComplaintHolmes – Prostitution Reform Bill – interview with Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP who abstained from voting – challenged on decision to abstain – blamed for passage of Bill – held up to ridicule and contempt – unfairFindingsStandard 4 – MP given right to reply to criticism – no uphold Standard 6 – as with Standard 4 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Prostitution Reform Bill was passed in Parliament by one vote on 25 June 2003. In an item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on Thursday 26 June, comment was made that the Bill would not have been passed had Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP not abstained. Mr Choudhary was interviewed regarding his abstention....

ComplaintHolmes Election Special; Prime Ministerial Debate – unbalanced – unfair to leader of opposition FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – live debate – robust discussion – similar allocation of time to present views – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A Holmes Election Special; Prime Ministerial Debate programme was broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 22 July 2002. It featured Ms Helen Clark and Mr Bill English, the leaders of the two main political parties. It was a general election programme, broadcast live with a studio audience, and the leaders were questioned on their party policies. [2] Mr Hugh Webb complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced and that Mr English was treated unfairly....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – during interview with Kiwi actor, presenter commented “I was about as popular as a wet fart in a wedding dress” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was a brief, throwaway remark used to convey the meaning the presenter was unpopular – upholding complaint would be unreasonable limit on right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment programme, the presenters interviewed a Kiwi actor. One of the presenters stated: I’ve actually got to make a confession right here and right now [laughter from actor]… what a bang-up geezer [name] is, because I did an interview with [name] about two weeks ago....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-072:One New Zealand Foundation Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-072 PDF477. 75 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....