Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A and Marae Investigates – items discussed domestic violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed controversial issue of public importance – items clearly framed as focusing on men’s violence against women – did not discuss gender of perpetrators and victims of domestic violence so not required to present alternative viewpoints on that issue – not necessary to expressly acknowledge that men could be the victims of domestic violence – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – no implication that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence – item did not encourage discrimination against, or the denigration of, men as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an item on Story, an actor approached four different real estate agencies (Ray White, LJ Hooker, Barfoot & Thompson and Harcourts) and asked agents to sell him properties for investment prior to auction and at a lower price, which it was alleged would be in breach of the industry code. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that one of the Story presenters had a conflict of interest because of her family connections to Barfoot & Thompson, which resulted in a breach of standards. The Authority is not in a position to determine whether such a conflict existed, but in any case, the alleged conflict did not manifest as a breach of the broadcasting standards nominated....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A brief item on 1 News discussed a protest in Christchurch against Vero Insurance (Vero) regarding outstanding insurance claims. The item contained footage of the protestors and the newsreader stated that ‘[One of the protestors] says Vero has kept them locked in a virtual prison for seven years. ’ The broadcaster upheld a complaint from Vero under the balance and fairness standards, as Vero ought to have been given an opportunity to comment. Vero referred the complaint to the Authority on the basis it was dissatisfied with the action taken by the broadcaster in response to its original complaint, and it also maintained that the accuracy standard was breached. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the statement complained about was a statement of opinion and therefore the accuracy standard did not apply....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold a complaint that statements made by Jesse Mulligan during a segment of The Project breached the accuracy standard. Mr Mulligan criticised National MP Judith Collins for retweeting a story in relation to changes to France’s child sex laws, stating the story was ‘made up’ and claiming Ms Collins was ‘learning that in 2018 you don't need to show people the truth’. The Authority found Mr Mulligan’s statements were statements of opinion and analysis and therefore the accuracy standard did not apply. In reaching the decision the Authority considered the context in which the comments were made, including the focus of the segment as a whole and audience expectations of The Project. Not Upheld: Accuracy The broadcast[1] A segment of The Project discussed National MP Judith Collins’ tweet of a story published by yournewswire....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Coast FM News reported that Zero Commission ‘has been making low ball offers’ to shareholders of various companies. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that Zero Commission and its shareholders were treated unfairly as no opportunity was given to respond to the claims or the negative impression created. The minority did not consider the item was unfair as Zero Commission could reasonably expect some commentary from time to time that it would not like or agree with. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the use of the term ‘low ball’ was inaccurate as this was a subjective term, not a point of fact. The controversial issues standard was not applicable because the item focused squarely on one company, not a controversial issue of public importance....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on the most recent report of the IPCC and summarised some of the report’s findings, including predictions of more frequent storms and droughts. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the summary was inaccurate, as the broadcaster provided information demonstrating a sufficient basis for the statements made. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported on the most recent report (AR5 Report) released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The item was introduced:Rising sea levels, more extinct species and possible food shortages. That’s the grim prediction by a global gathering of top scientists who say, for the first time, we are responsible for climate change. And as [reporter’s name] reports, New Zealand’s set to feel the heat too....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a Mediawatch broadcast breached various standards by allegedly ‘demonising’ New Zealanders who have concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. The Authority found the broadcast was accurate in reporting on COVID-19 related events, and did not treat Liz Gunn, a prominent figure known for her vaccine hesitant perspectives, or other persons referred to unfairly. The discrimination and denigration, and balance standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-096 Decision No: 1997-097 Decision No: 1997-098 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL Broadcaster THE RADIO NETWORK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-140 Decision No: 1997-141 Decision No: 1997-142 Decision No: 1997-143 Dated the 13th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LYNN PHEASE of Putaruru and MARGARET MITCHELL of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintInside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision – documentary – abortion –inaccurate statements – unbalanced – undermined New Zealand legislation FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2a – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 4 – programme balanced – no upholdStandard 5 and Guidelines 5b, 5d & 5e – mixture of fact & opinion – accurate and impartial – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Inside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision was a documentary which followed three women while they made a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Several other women, who had been through the same experience, were also interviewed on the programme. The documentary was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 28 November 2002....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 1. Holmes – 18 and 19 November 2003 – complainant director of Network Visas NZ Ltd – in dispute with 13 Romanian students – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – not company’s registered office – complainant given inadequate opportunity to respond – a number of factual inaccuracies – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair 2. Holmes – 18 November 2003 – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – after broadcast, complainant visited by landlord – complainant’s wife who operates beauty business from the address felt intimidated – alleged breach of privacy 3....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item examining the firearms licensing system and whether it was “too easy to get your licence” – showed hidden camera footage of volunteers taking firearms safety test – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – majority considers item failed to properly explain the place of the firearms safety test within the entire licensing scheme – viewers deprived of a significant perspective on whether it was too easy to obtain a firearms licence in New Zealand – majority uphold Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item did not denigrate or treat MSC instructors unfairly – licensed firearms-holders not a “section of the community” as envisaged by the guideline – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eye to Eye – host asked his guests whether the Labour or Māori Party candidate would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election – did not mention a third candidate for the electorate – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Eye to Eye, broadcast on TV One at 9. 30am on 5 February 2005, the host asked his two female guests whether Dover Samuels (Labour Party) or Hone Harawira (Māori Party) would win the seat of Tai Tokerau in the upcoming election....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – claimed that product leaves timber vulnerable to borer or rot – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – two statements in breach of Standard 5 – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Osmose as manufacturer of TimberSaver – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $1,500 Payment of costs to the Crown $1,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on TV One on One News at 6pm on 12 July 2005 stated that TimberSaver (also known as T1. 2), a timber product being used on homes in the wake of the “leaky homes” scandal, was vulnerable to borer or rot....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about new pricing structures for national calls at Telecom – graphic stated $0. 08c per minute on national calls – correct price $0. 18c per minute – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic inaccurate – significant mistake requiring correction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6:00pm on 26 August 2004, contained an item on new pricing structures at Telecom for national calls. During the item, a graphic noted the following: “Anytime Plan” National Calling: $0. 08c per minute National Capped: $2. 75 (up to two hours) Home to Mobile: $0. 48c calls to 027 & 025, $0. 55c calls to 021 & 029 [2] The correct price for national calls was in fact $0. 18c per minute....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes. The complainant argued that the item was misleading and unbalanced because the claims were presented as ‘fact’ and ‘inevitable’ rather than as ‘extreme projections’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, as it clearly consisted of opinion and predictions, and was not presented as fact....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the release of the Government’s Budget that day – discussed impact of the budget on a range of New Zealanders including three “high earners” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – brief references to the incomes of three high earners did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements about the impact of the budget on three high earners were not material points of fact – viewers would have understood that the point being made was that they would have more money each week than lower earners – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – references to incomes of high earners did not result in them being treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not…...