Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-090 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WACO COATINGS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary The situation faced by the original owners of some pensioner flats in Kaiapoi was addressed in an item on Fair Go broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV One on 12 May 1999. The item reported that when the owners featured on the programme had purchased their flat in the mid-seventies from the local authority, they had agreed to sell it back to the Council for the same price when they left. The item disclosed that the original prices were between $13,000 and $17,000, and the properties were now worth between $65,000 and $75,000. The ethics of the Waimakariri District Council in enforcing the agreement were questioned, and it was suggested to viewers that they write to the Council expressing their opposition to the policy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 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…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – use of the word “shit” – allegedly in breach of standards of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter used the word “shit” as an expression of his pain and frustration – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 23 March 2011, one of the presenters discussed his frustration with attempting to assemble a “spring-free” trampoline. Having nearly finished putting the trampoline together, the presenter discovered that he had inserted the rods under the trampoline into the wrong holes. He remarked, “So we have to undo all those? Shit. ” He went on to say, “Getting them out is almost worse than getting them in, and more hazardous....

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...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

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...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go dealing with the ‘flushability’ of nappy liners breached the accuracy, fairness, privacy and balance standards. The Authority found the programme was not inaccurate or misleading in suggesting the liners were not ‘flushable’. It found the complainant was not treated unfairly as a result of the broadcast of a recorded ‘cold call’ and the complainant’s views were fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of privacy standards and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Balance...

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

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 – 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 OrderThis 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. A doctor from ACC said it may well have been unethical for a doctor to use finance as a barrier to treatment....

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....

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....

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....

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....

Summary An item on Fair Go reported on a dart-throwing competition which had been won by an Auckland man. The competition had been organised by a promoter, who had arranged insurance for the event with his United States principal. After the competition had been won, the principal refused to accept the claim, asserting the winner’s throw had been wind-assisted. The item suggested the wind would not necessarily have assisted the winner. It also suggested that a competition clause excluding "assistance" for dart throwing had been utilised by the promoter to escape his liability to the winner. The item was broadcast on TV One on 21 April 1999 commencing at 7. 30pm....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 91/94 Dated the 29th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SOUTHLAND FUEL INJECTION LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...