Search Rapua

SummaryA Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 5 August 1998 dealt with the attempt by a motor vehicle dealer to repossess a couple’s car. It was reported that the owner of the company had been fined by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute for misconduct. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair, unbalanced and impartial because it was the company, and not the individual, which had been fined. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Mr Radisich, as Chief Executive, was responsible for the company’s business and it did not consider that the item had been unfair to name him. It advised that it was unable to find any aspect which lacked balance or impartiality and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Radisich’s solicitor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

An appeal against this decision was allowed in part in the High Court with the Authority instructed to amend its order: AP158/91 PDF (204. 76 KB)Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-025:Mansell and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-025 PDF683. 79 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

ComplaintFair Go – repairs to computer unsatisfactory and costly – inaccurate – unbalanced – misleading – breach of privacy. FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – no uphold Standards G6 – not applicable Standard G4 – use of secret microphone by protagonist – unfair – uphold Privacy principle (iii) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Fair Go on 15 November 2000 investigated a complaint from the owner of a computer about the extent and the cost of some repair work carried out by Auckland Computer Services. Fair Go is a consumer advocacy programme broadcast weekly at 7. 30pm on TV One. Steve Moodley, trading as Auckland Computer Services, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

SummaryAward of Costs – Re Decision No: 1996-094 and 1996-095Pursuant to its powers under s. 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to award such costs and expenses as are reasonable, the Authority has exercised its discretion to award costs to Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd, following its decision to uphold AMI's complaint about that Fair Go programme broadcast on TV One on 18 March 1996 lacked balance. The Authority records that it invited and received submissions from Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd and from Television New Zealand Ltd on the question of costs and, after careful consideration of the arguments from both parties, it decided an award of costs was appropriate in all of the circumstances of the case. CostsUnder s. 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to pay costs to Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd in the sum of $3000....

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...

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....

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...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-161:Baby Relax (NZ) Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-161 PDF1. 3 MB...

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 [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-001:Cook and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-001 PDF301. 93 KB...

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....

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…...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go that dealt with various issues arising from a house being built breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found the programme was inaccurate and misleading in its portrayal of the issues involved in building the house. It found the complainants were portrayed unfairly and their views were not fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of the privacy standard, and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance.   Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness Not Upheld: Privacy, Balance Orders: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement on air and online; Section 16(1) $2,000 legal costs and $98. 70 disbursements, Section 16(4) $1000 costs to the Crown...

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....