Search Rapua

SummaryLight-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7. 30–8. 00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology. Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on complaints by two families about the allegedly unsatisfactory supply and installation of their swimming pools, purchased from The Spa and Pool Factory (SPF). During the item, the reporter also noted that the Auckland Council was investigating SPF regarding ‘potentially fraudulent documentation’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the director of SPF that the item was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of his privacy. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead viewers, going directly to Mr Radisich and to Auckland Council to seek their comments on the issues raised....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-094 Decision No: 1996-095 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold – no order AppealConsent order – appropriateness of no order(s) being imposed remitted back to the Authority Findings on ReconsiderationNo order appropriate This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – items investigated complaint against The Battery Clinic and its manager, the complainant, relating to a system developed to extend the life of batteries in older hybrid vehicles – experts expressed concerns about the safety of the system – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Fair Go had a sufficient basis for presenting the view that the system developed by the complainant was potentially dangerous – complainant provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to claims and to defend his invention, and his perspective was fairly presented in the broadcasts – very high public interest in reporting on matters that have the potential to impact on public safety – overall, complainant and the Battery Clinic were treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccuracies related to mechanical and engineering matters outside the Authority’s expertise…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic – included disputed claims about couple's dealings with mechanic – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item created negative impression of the complainant but he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item – complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – claims presented as couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not points of fact (guideline 5a) – viewers would have understood that claims were one side of the story and were disputed by the complainant so they would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-113 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LANCASTER SALES AND SERVICE LIMITED of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A car buyer, disappointed with his purchase from a car dealer, was the subject of an item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One on 9 September 1998. It was reported that the vehicle he had agreed to purchase had been involved in a serious accident in France, and that the rebuilt vehicle did not meet New Zealand safety standards. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that he and his company were unfairly treated on the programme and that it lacked balance. In particular, he complained that the programme’s implication that it had been agreed that the vehicle would meet original specifications was a gross misrepresentation of the facts. He also complained about the fact that he was identified as being the person responsible for the sale, when he had merely facilitated a negotiation....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – all were dissatisfied with Strata Title Administration Limited and its director Michael Chapman-Smith – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Mr Chapman-Smith had agreed to an interview and then changed his mind – other statements not inaccurate – one aspect upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overall item was fair – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 13 October 2004 examined complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – Tuscany Towers, Ponsonby Crest, Waterford Apartments and Garden Grove....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 86/94 Dated the 20th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JARDINE INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-033:Rutherford and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-033 PDF1. 11 MB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 146/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G CHAMBERS of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item interviewed Christchurch women who wanted to cancel their gym contracts due to the closure or relocation of premises – reported that Configure Express Northlands had relocated but that members could not cancel their contracts without incurring financial loss – barrister gave legal advice that the contracts had been frustrated and were unenforceable – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item contained comments from two women which suggested their issues related solely to relocation, that the gym refused to refund them and that they would be significantly out of pocket – omitted important information about the women’s individual circumstances – impression not mitigated by opportunity given to the complainant to respond to the issues – reasonable to expect Fair Go to adhere to the same high standards the programme imposes on others – complainant…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-038 Decision No: 1996-039 Dated the 28th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DARRYLL CHOWAN and DARRYLL CHOWAN MOTORS LTD 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 1989Fair Go – item discussing copyright in photos – featured a woman who believed a photo she took had been posted on the internet as belonging to someone else – stated that American photographer claimed to have taken the photo – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was misleading in conveying that the woman owned the photo and that Mr Bush had “stolen” it and was claiming it as his own – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair in implying that the complainant did not own the photo – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant sufficiently identifiable from website details – but website and photo in the public domain – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld OrdersSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $1,000 This…...