Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – included estimates of Iraqi civilian and military deaths since 2003 invasion – figures said to be difficult to verify – conservatively put at 49,642 but said most estimates suggested well over 100,000 – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – wide ranging estimate was not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast 1] The estimated number of Iraqi deaths since the US-led invasion on 20 March 2003 was given in an item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One on 7 December 2006 beginning at 7. 00pm. After giving the number of American and other coalition soldiers killed, the item reported: When it comes to tallying the number of Iraqi deaths, figures are difficult to verify....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that a homicide investigation was underway after the death of Rotorua high school principal Hawea Vercoe – presenter stated that Mr Vercoe had died after being punched to the ground during a fight – included details of a recent conviction – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reporters entitled to rely on information provided by police – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the report was accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – family did not take part and were not referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Sunday 22 November 2009, reported on the death of high school principal Hawea Vercoe....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about two broadcasts on The OARsome Morning Show and The Afro-Caribbean Show respectively on OAR FM Dunedin, where the hosts shared their experiences of receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine, and encouraged the audience to get vaccinated. The complainant alleged the broadcasts breached the accuracy and balance standards as they did not mention the risk of adverse reactions. The Authority found that the broadcasts did not imply any side effects would be minimal/non-existent and were not misleading by omitting mention of potential adverse reactions. The balance standard did not apply as the broadcasts did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 66/94 Dated the 18th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FAMILIES APART REQUIRE EQUALITY INC (FARE) Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 112/94 Dated the 17th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAME THEA MULDOON of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-020 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LAURIE SANDERS of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-103 Decision No: 1996-104 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter 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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-091 Dated the 17th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Australian Tennis Open – some footage included a “Live” watermark even though the matches had already been played – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard P8 (accuracy) – not a “significant error of fact” – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] From 14 to 27 January 2008, footage of the Australian Tennis Open was broadcast on SKY Sport 2 between 1pm and 12am. Between matches that were broadcast live, historical footage, simultaneous matches, and highlights from matches which had already taken place were screened to fill in the scheduled breaks. Some of these were introduced by commentators as footage that was filling the time between matches, or identified as games that had already been played earlier in the tournament. For example:. . . Later on, we’ve got the second of the men’s singles semi-finals. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – statement broadcast about a complaint upheld by the Authority – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement was an accurate representation of the Authority's decision – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – nothing unfair to Mr Greally in the statement – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd was ordered to broadcast a statement after a complaint had been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Decision No: 2006-020 related to a complaint by Elizabeth Dunning about a One News item screened on 3 February 2006. The statement required by the Authority was broadcast on TV One during One News at approximately 6pm on 22 November 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host made comments about television personality who hosted Anzac Day programme on Māori Television – said she would have been paid “$25,000 or thereabouts” – questioned whether she would have “been allowed to take that lovely piece of greenstone home with her” – host also called Māori Television “disgusting apartheid TV station” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly speculation – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not a “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – use of archive footage of haka during item about foreshore and seabed dispute – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – use of footage not misleading or inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – use not unfair to any person or group – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Archive footage of a haka performed at Waitangi beach was used in a Holmes item about the dispute over ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The programme was broadcast on 19 August 2003 at 7. 00pm on TV One. [2] Wiremu Te Rauna Williams complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the archive footage was inaccurate and amounted to “fraud and betrayal”, as it had no connection to the seabed and foreshore debate....

ComplaintElection programme – Labour Party advertisement – Prime Minister seen with New Zealanders in UN Peacekeeping force in East Timor – her presence implied support for East Timor – incorrect in light of New Zealand’s historical position Findings Standard 5 and Guideline 5b – item focused in part on transition to independence – not inaccurate – not misleading – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election advertisement for the New Zealand Labour Party was screened on TV One at about 7. 00pm on 2 July 2002. Among the visuals the Prime Minister was shown visiting the New Zealanders who were part of the UN Peacekeeping force in East Timor. [2] Marcel Spencer complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the advertisement was misleading in that it suggested New Zealand’s support for East Timor’s independence....

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....