Search

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…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....

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....

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...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-175 Decision No: 1996-176 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TEMALOTI FAKAOSI (2) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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...

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...

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...

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: 70/94 Dated the 22nd day of August 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 L. M. Dawson...

ComplaintFair Go – auction of house – sale fell through – house resold to unsuccessful bidder – unreasonable to charge two commissions – unfair – unbalanced Findings(1) Standard G4 – promo – unfair – uphold (2) Standard G4 – items explained issues fairly – no uphold – Standards G6, G7 G11(i) – subsumed No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Fair Go, a consumer advocate programme, is broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 30pm. In the episodes broadcast on 12 and 19 July 2000, it reported that the vendor of a house believed that he had been unfairly charged a second commission by real estate agents after a first sale had fallen through and a subsequent sale had been made. His belief was alluded to in a promo for Fair Go which was broadcast on a number of occasions....

ComplaintFair Go – “Fair Go Ad Awards” – presenter lampooned margarine advertisement – sexual suggestions allegedly offensive and unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 – sexual innuendo oblique and inexplicit – comedy – not upheld Standard 9 – not unsuitable for children in context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The annual “Fair Go Ad Awards” included a segment during which the presenter lampooned an advertisement for margarine, which had been nominated for “worst ad”. The episode of Fair Go was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 15 October 2003. [2] Geoff New complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the parodies contained sexually suggestive material which breached standards of good taste and decency and was unsuitable for children. [3] In response, TVNZ disagreed that the programme breached broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go Ad Awards – two teams of advertisers were asked to “sell us Quade Cooper for New Zealand’s next Prime Minister” during live advertising awards – included comments such as, “everyone hates Quade Cooper” – allegedly in breach of fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – piece was intended to be light-hearted and humorous, rather than malicious or abusive – presented in the spirit of good-natured ribbing and team rivalry – Mr Cooper not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community, not individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....