Search Rapua

Summary A trailer broadcast during the news hour on One Network News on 20 May 1998 between 6. 00-7. 00pm advised that New Zealand’s Rugby Sevens team was at "Israel’s Wailing Wall". The item itself included a caption which identified the Wailing Wall as being in Jerusalem, and the script identified it as part of Israel. The Wellington Palestine Group, through a representative, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster that both the trailer and the item perpetuated an untruth, as the Wailing Wall was not part of Israel. The group said it objected to seeing TVNZ being used as a vehicle for Israeli propaganda. TVNZ responded that both the trailer and the item were in error in describing the Wailing Wall as being in Israel. On these points the complaint was upheld....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item mentioned Charlotte Dawson a number of times – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Decline to determine complaint under s. 11(a) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 on 8 November 2005 at 10pm contained a segment called “Save our Stars”, in which an actor went around the streets of Auckland collecting donations for various television presenters currently working for Prime Television. Correspondence [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the number of times Charlotte Dawson, a local celebrity, was mentioned in the programme. He argued that she had been referred to at least 11 times in the last 10 minutes of the episode, and submitted that Standards 4, 5 and 6 had been breached....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item on Turkey’s potential entry into the European Union – interview with London correspondent – comments allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – matters complained about were not the controversial issue of public importance under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – item did not denigrate Turkish people – no other grounds of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tonight broadcast a three-part item on 4 October 2005 at 10. 30pm covering the possible entry of Turkey into the European Union (EU). The first part of the item was an introductory piece by the Tonight presenter which briefly outlined the outcome of a meeting in Luxembourg....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item looked at the government’s rule change on foreign investment and its impact on Auckland airport shares and the share market in general – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – complaint vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 4 March 2008, reported on the share market’s turbulence after the government announced a change to foreign ownership rules preventing the sale of a major stake of Auckland International Airport shares to a Canadian pension fund. The item included interviews with Prime Minister Helen Clark, National Party leader John Key, Auckland airport chairman Tony Frankham, Graeme Bevans from the Canadian pension fund and Bruce Sheppard from the New Zealand Shareholders Association....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – item reported results of a survey about present and potential coalition parties for the two main political parties – item used phrase “propping up the government” on several occasions – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a, 4b, 4c – “propping up” not unacceptable in brief news item even when used repetitively – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5c and 5d – phrase has range of meanings – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The results of a survey about the present and potential coalition partners for the two main political parties were reported in an item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 at 6. 00pm on 1 August 2004....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included poll results from a Colmar Brunton survey – allegedly contained inaccurate reference to “sampling error” FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no reference to “sampling error” or “margin of error” in the item – complaint was based on corresponding website article – Authority does not have jurisdiction to consider print content on the internet – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Sunday 18 April 2010, an item reported on proposed changes to the current student loans scheme. Following a discussion of tertiary education and fees, a One News political editor analysed results of a recent Colmar Brunton poll....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the former chairman of Bridgecorp, Bruce Nelson Davidson, appearing in the District Court – stated that Mr Davidson was a past president of the Institute of Directors and of the Auckland District Law Society – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and programme information standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster upheld accuracy complaint – action taken by broadcaster sufficient – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

ComplaintLeighton Smith Morning Show – Newstalk ZB – interview with Chuck Missler – evangelist from United States – advanced prophecies from the Bible including some predictions about the Antichrist – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – encouraged discrimination FindingsPrinciple 4 – sufficient opportunities for balance – no uphold Principle 6 – not inaccurate – no uphold Principle 7 – denigration did not breach threshold – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] American evangelist, Chuck Missler, was a guest on the Leighton Smith Morning Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB, between 10–11am on 18 July 2003. In response to questions from the host and from listeners, Mr Missler spoke about the Antichrist and other predictions in the Bible....

ComplaintsHolmes – two items – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – inaccuracies – unfair to ACC and to women – unbalanced – unnecessary intrusion into grief and distress of victims – significant errors of fact not corrected at earliest opportunity Findings (ACC complaint)(1) Standard G1 – inaccurate to refer to counsellor as part of ACC’s organisation – inaccurate to say women were referred to counsellor by ACC – uphold (2) Standard G4 – broadcasts unfairly framed ACC – uphold; breach in relation to the interviews with the women – uphold (3) Standard G6 and Standard G14 – selective editing of press release – items unbalanced – uphold Findings (MacDonald complaint)(1) Standard G4 – aspect upheld by broadcaster; breach in relation to the interviews with the women – uphold; broadcasts unfairly framed ACC – uphold (2) Standard G6 – item unbalanced – uphold Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $12,500 reimbursement of reasonable…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on Christchurch homeowners living in the government’s red zone with regard to their replacement insurance policies – interviewed Tower Insurance customer who had been advised that his replacement insurance would cover the cost of repairing his damaged house but not its full replacement value – visited Tower’s head office – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Campbell Live exhausted all legitimate methods to obtain comment from Tower – Mr Campbell’s approach polite and non-confrontational – door-stepping used as a means of obtaining information and constructive comment – not unfair to Tower or the receptionist – reference to email a fair summary of its contents – overall Tower treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

ComplaintFair Go – repairs to computer unsatisfactory and costly – inaccurate – unbalanced – misleading – breach of privacy. FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – no uphold Standards G6 – not applicable Standard G4 – use of secret microphone by protagonist – unfair – uphold Privacy principle (iii) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Fair Go on 15 November 2000 investigated a complaint from the owner of a computer about the extent and the cost of some repair work carried out by Auckland Computer Services. Fair Go is a consumer advocacy programme broadcast weekly at 7. 30pm on TV One. Steve Moodley, trading as Auckland Computer Services, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item allegedly contained comments that were inconsistent with BBC report – allegedly in breach of accuracy standardFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster unable to locate comments specified by the complainant – Authority therefore unable to assess broadcasting standards against those comments – Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] J M Baxter made a formal complaint to TVNZ about an item broadcast on One News at 6pm on 22 September 2012. He asserted that the item was inconsistent with a BBC report which quoted the United States Attorney General saying that New Zealand had opened its ports to US war ships....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....