Search

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Downsize Me! – recommendations on weight loss and nutrition – allegedly inaccurate and misleading Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – "factual programme" in the sense that it reported actual events and offered general information – advice and "scare tactics" presented in personable way – general messages were to eat better, exercise regularly and improve health – viewers would have understood that most of the advice was tailored to the particular participant – no misleading statements – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Downsize Me! was a health, diet and exercise programme where overweight people worked for eight weeks to lose weight and reduce health risks. The Tuesday 9 September 2008 episode, broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV3, featured a woman named Carolyn. The Downsize Me!...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)3 News – item about the release of the United Nations’ fourth report on climate change immediately preceded item about glacial decline in New Zealand – introduction to second item began “the UN report seems to back up what’s happening here” – images of ice melting and falling into water – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – was a factual report rather than a discussion – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] UN Report on climate change During 3 News on 18 November 2007, an item was broadcast at approximately 6. 15pm about the release of the fourth report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which, according to the presenter, asserted that “there is no doubt global warming is man-made”....

Complaint under section 8(1C)(c)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item looked at the business practices of a private chiropractic practice called The Spinal Health Foundation and its resident chiropractor, Dr Sean Parker – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not imply that Dr Parker was offering personal loans to patients or that pre-pay arrangements were unethical – statement relating to possible breaches of ethics was sufficiently qualified – not upheld – decline to determine point relating to changing of paperwork under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standard 6 (fairness) – questions asked of Dr Parker were generic – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – broadcaster treated Dr Parker fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintGive It a Whirl – documentary – stories from rock'n'roll era in New Zealand – included comments about a 1960s music show C'mon – ‘apple incident' recalled and comments said to be inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 – majority – evidence sufficient to conclude that incident did not occur – uphold – minority – anecdote not expected to be entirely accurate – no uphold Standard 6 – evidence sufficient to rule that complainant treated unfairly – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Give It a Whirl was a documentary series about the rock'n'roll era in New Zealand. An episode broadcast on TV One at 8. 40pm on 2 June 2003 referred to C'mon – a televised national music show in the 1960s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – Colmar Brunton poll surveyed voters’ party vote preferences – did not make correct assumption about likely Māori Party result – use of poll data in “virtual Parliament” format allegedly misleading and inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – poll relied on reasonable assumptions – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast political items on One News at 6pm on 28 August and 4 September 2005. The items reported the outcome of two political polls conducted for Television New Zealand Ltd, by research company Colmar Brunton. [2] Both items reported how the outcome of the polls would translate to the make-up of a new Parliament, using a “virtual Parliament” to illustrate how many seats each party might win in the forthcoming election....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item looking at possible reasons for high crime statistics for young Māori – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not purport to cover all perspectives – discussed one part of the wider issue – period of current interest still open – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the Māori community or the youths interviewed – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes entitled “Māori Challenge” was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 18 April 2005. The item explored a possible link between the high rate of Māori criminal offending and the way in which male aggression may be seen as important to Māori identity, particularly through the haka....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and Tonight – allegations of gang-related bullying at Taradale High School – item reported that petition given to school board by students – reported that petition was against bullying and sought to have students responsible removed – One News referred to troublemaking students as “Black Power bullies” – Tonight referred to them as “Black Power babies” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interestsFindingsMr Calcinai’s complaintStandard 5 (accuracy) – item implied that Board of Trustees took no action until presented with students’ petition – inaccurate – petition did not request board to remove students referred to as “Black Power babies” – inaccurate – situation described as “bullying” – was in fact two conflicting parties – not made clear in item – inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to school’s reputation to suggest gang-related…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – programme focussed on forthcoming Civil Unions Bill – included a telephone poll asking viewers to respond to the question “Should gay relationships be legally recognised” – polls results found 24% in favour of gay relationships being recognised and 76% against – closing comments by host queried which polls politicians in support of the Bill were relying on – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – poll not presented as scientific – results reflected only the views of those willing to call in – limitations of poll clear – host’s comments presented as opinion not fact – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – panel discussion about power outage in Auckland – complainant alleged that programme gave the impression that the discussion was live, when it was pre-recorded – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standardFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no statements of fact alleged to be inaccurate – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation alleged to be treated unfairly – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard requires viewers to be disadvantaged before breach will be found – no disadvantage to viewers – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 12 June 2006, included a panel discussion about a recent power outage in Auckland....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reference to the “Labour Government” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme informationFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – “Labour-led” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld – majority considers “Labour” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld Standard 5 (fairness) – no issue of fairness arises – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast an item on Close Up on 21 July 2005 at 7pm. During the course of a political interview, the presenter used the term “Labour Government” to refer to the Government. Complaint [2] Vivienne Shepherd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the term “Labour Government” was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme information. She noted that the government was made up of a Labour-Progressive Coalition....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an MP who reactivated Dutch citizenship – possible breach of law – MP’s lawyer presented as constitutional specialist and not as legal representative Standard 5 – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster – role as lawyer since reported in other programme – action considered insufficient Standard 4 – balance – not considered by broadcaster – referred to AuthorityProcess Application by complainant for Discovery – declined Application by complainant for Interlocutory Decision – declinedFindings Standard 4 – item’s focus on possibility of by-election – balanced – not upheld Action Taken – a correction broadcast at the time of error should have occurred – now a year later, no order appropriate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – “Troubled Waters” – boating accident involving fishing expert Wayne Wills aka “Bill Hohepa” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair as item suggested that Maritime Safety Authority had relentlessly and unjustifiably pursued, and continued to pursue, Mr WillsFindings Standard 4 (balance) – reasonable efforts made to present significant points of view – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained one inaccuracy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Wills’ view was not unfair to the MSA – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The consequences of a boating incident in 1996 involving the fishing expert Wayne Wills, better known and referred to in the programme as “Bill Hohepa”, in which one person drowned, was dealt with in an item broadcast on TV3 in 60 Minutes on 8 December 2003....

ComplaintHolmes – lifting of moratorium on commercial release of genetically modified organisms – studio debate – “Trust and Country Image” report discussed – complainant maintained he accurately quoted report – presenter allegedly misrepresented report – presenter allegedly unfairly criticised complainant Findings Standard 5 – presenter’s introductory statement on report inaccurate – upheld Standard 5 – presenter’s criticism a question of fairness, not accuracy – issue considered under Standard 6 Standard 6 – presenter’s vehement interjection amounted to accusation of deliberate misrepresentation – content, manner and tone of interjection an unfair overreaction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 23 October 2003 dealt with the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms....

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....

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....

An appeal against this decision was allowed in the High Court and the complaint was referred back to the Authority for reconsideration: CIV 2010-485-225 PDF136. 55 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday with Chris Laidlaw – host interviewed sociologist about anti-Semitic fringe groups in New Zealand that were seeking to deny or downplay the extent of the Holocaust – interviewee made statements about an individual who he said was a Holocaust denier – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a factual programme – interviewee made statements of fact that were material to topic under discussion – accusations extremely serious – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to assess the veracity of the accusations – upheld by majorityNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....