Search Rapua

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...

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…...

ComplaintFair Go – item about pamphlet distributed by complainant – a legal firm – offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in dealing with ACC – failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced and complainant’s response presented inadequately – unfair as the victim’s (Sally) waiver whose story told was incomplete – inaccurate – hearing sought in view of numerous complex legal and factual issues – application declined – disclosure of field tape of interview with "Sally" and assorted correspondence sought Decision on disclosure applicationDeclined This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Background [1] A pamphlet offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in securing compensation from ACC was distributed by the complainant – a legal firm....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Fair Go which covered a customer’s experience in purchasing a second-hand vehicle from Universal Imports. The customer did not obtain a pre-purchase report and when the vehicle broke down she attempted to reject the purchase under the Consumer Guarantees Act. A Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal ruling found in her favour. After the ruling, she ‘copped abuse, personal insults and name calling’ connected with the Universal Imports issues. The complainant alleged the programme was unfair to Universal Imports and its owner, and was inaccurate in how it presented the situation. The Authority found the business and its owner were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, and the programme was materially accurate. The complainant’s concerns about the use of aspects of his YouTube videos are not capable of being addressed under the standards....

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....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 2/94 Dated the 19th day of January 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NATIONWIDE GUARANTEE CORPORATION LIMITED of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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....

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....

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: 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....