Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-096 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SYLVIA GATES of Ashburton Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about NZ Army engineers in Iraq – reference to an article written by the complainant and published in the “Sunday Star-Times” – item’s focus was engineers’ reaction to the article’s claims that their achievements had been exaggerated – complainant alleged that item unfairly represented article, and was inaccurate and unbalancedFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item’s focus was reporting reaction to the article’s claims of exaggerating the achievements of engineers and did not require further balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item inaccurately reported that newspaper article said that the engineers were exaggerating their achievements – not otherwise inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – article ambiguous in parts – unfair to complainant to misreport the exaggeration claims as being made by the engineers – not otherwise unfair – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item including pictures of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon – allegedly inaccurate and in breach of programme information standardFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine under s. 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act whether plane actually hit the Pentagon– item not misleading or inaccurate in any respect – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – graphic of plane was overt and did not constitute “subliminal perception” – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on 3 News at 6pm on 17 May 2006 included pictures of the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon which had just been released by the United States military. The segment stated that the release of these pictures “may fail to put to rest the many conspiracy theories that are surfacing on the internet”....

ComplaintReel Life: Thalidomide – A Necessary Evil – documentary – Dr Nigel Brown claims no evidence that any chemical which causes a birth defect in one generation can also cause defects in subsequent generations – inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – legitimate expression of scientific opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Reel Life documentary broadcast on TV One on 9 March 2001 between 9. 45pm and 10. 45pm, entitled Thalidomide – A Necessary Evil, examined the reappearance of thalidomide as an apparently effective drug in the treatment of a variety of illnesses including leprosy. During the course of the programme, Dr Nigel Brown from St George’s Hospital in London commented to the effect that there was no evidence that any chemical, including thalidomide, which had caused a birth defect in one generation could be blamed for similar defects in subsequent generations....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the humanitarian crisis in Damascus following disruption of water supplies, caused by fighting between the Syrian army and rebel forces. During the item, the reporter said, ‘The outage came after the government attacked rebels holding the city’s main water source’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item was biased and misleading by allegedly attributing blame for the water outages to President Bashar al-Assad, rather than the rebel forces. In the context of a brief item focused on the humanitarian impact of the conflict, the statement made by the reporter was a reasonable description of what occurred, and the omission of further information or different sources would not have left viewers misled or uninformed about the events covered by the item....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A documentary called Jungle Rain reported on the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and the long-term effects of this on New Zealand veterans and their families. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the documentary was alarmist and misleading. The documentary largely comprised the personal opinions and experiences of the interviewees, and contained balancing comment. Not Upheld: Accuracy, BalanceIntroduction[1] A documentary called Jungle Rain reported on the use of herbicides including Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, and the long-term effects of this on New Zealand veterans and their families. The documentary was broadcast on TVNZ Heartland on 13 March 2014....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-133:Associate Minister of Health (Hon Maurice Williamson) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-133 PDF1. 02 MB...

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 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…...

ComplaintGoing Straight – documentary about curing homosexuals through Christian programme – inaccurate – unbalanced – discrimination against homosexuals Findings(1) Standard G6 – majority – documentary focussed on perspectives of those featured – no uphold (2) Standard G13 – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Going Straight was broadcast on Prime Television on 16 June 2000 at 8. 35pm. The programme was a documentary about gay men who were attempting to change their sexual orientation through a Christian programme run at Caleb House in Kansas. The New Zealand Aids Foundation, through its research director, Tony Hughes, complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced. In its view, an exclusively religious perspective on homosexuality had been presented....

ComplaintOne News – kiwi released back to wild after recovery from injury in “hunter’s trap” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair to describe person who accidentally trapped kiwi as “hunter” – allegedly denigrated recreational huntersFindings Standard 5 – “hunter” and “trapper” sufficiently synonymous – not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – recreational hunting not an “occupational status” and recreational hunters not a “section of the community” under Guideline 6g – recreational hunters not referred to in item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item broadcast on One News on TV One on 6 January 2004 reported that a kiwi had been released back into the wild after five months spent recovering from “life-threatening injuries [sustained] in a hunter’s trap”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with member of United Kingdom National Commission into Islam – presenter referred to young Muslims being recruited by terrorist groups – allegedly inaccurate and denigratory of Muslims Findings Principle 6 (Accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (Fairness – denigration) – item not denigratory of Muslims – comment by presenter did not refer to Muslims generally – comment was accurate – words used were in context of serious comment about United Kingdom police policy towards Muslims – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In Nine to Noon, broadcast on National Radio on the morning of 9 June 2004, presenter Linda Clark interviewed Robin Richardson, a member of the United Kingdom’s National Commission into Islam....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item featured a woman who claimed to have suffered terrible experiences while in state care in the 1960s – photo shown of the woman as a young child with five other children – allegedly in breach of privacy and accuracy 3 News – item reported on government’s decision to bring forward a review of alleged abuse suffered by people while in state care during the 1960s and 70s – made reference to the 60 Minutes item and the woman who alleged she had been abused – showed the same photo as contained in the 60 Minutes item – allegedly in breach of privacy and accuracy Findings60 Minutes and 3 News Standard 3 (privacy) – children not identifiable beyond close family and friends – did not disclose any private facts – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with Sir Eion Edgar – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Monday 22 February 2010, the host interviewed Sir Eion Edgar as he had recently been named Senior New Zealander of the Year....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday and One News – reported on a police drugs bust involving former Australian swimmer Scott Miller – Charlotte Dawson mentioned as being his ex-wife – one item included wedding photos of Ms Dawson and Mr Miller – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – items were accurate on points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Ms Dawson was treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – alleged that ACC had not fulfilled its legal obligation to tell its clients about an Independent Earner Tax Credit – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – complainant concerned that it was not given an opportunity to respond to one statement in the item – that issue was not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was inaccurate in stating that ACC had a legal obligation to inform its clients of the credit – one aspect upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast at 6pm on TV3 on 17 April 2009, and repeated on Nightline at 10....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about large-scale animal neglect on a farm owned by one of New Zealand’s largest dairy producers – included footage of the complainant – allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled into believing the complainant was involved with animal cruelty on the farm – item accurate on material points of fact – majority – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – parts of the item borderline, but fair overall – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – complainant’s behaviour contributed to the way in which she was portrayed – majority – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....