Search Rapua

SummaryThe relationship between a Department of Corrections employee and a former inmate, which was the subject of a later investigation by the department and resulted in the resignation of the employee, was the focus of items on 20/20, broadcast by TV3 on 11 October and 15 November 1998. It was also the subject of a bulletin opener and a news item on 3 News on 10 November 1998. Mr Wallace, father of the employee, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) that the identification of his son in the commentary, and the footage accompanying it, represented harassment and a gross invasion of his son’s privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item discussed “all-out war” between the Wellington Mayor and a city councillor – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of psychologist trivialised the situation but viewers unlikely to have taken her comments seriously – Mayor given adequate opportunity to comment – not unfair to Ms Prendergast or to the Council – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 16 July 2009, was introduced by the presenter as follows: What on earth is going on at Wellington City Council?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South Park – picture of a statue of Jesus Christ – voice said “Look at me, I’m Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you Mr Bush?...

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....

SummaryA Frontline programme broadcast on 12 September 1993 focused on the electricity pricingarrangements between Comalco (NZ) Ltd and ECNZ and raised questions about the ratescharged to domestic and large commercial consumers. Comalco (NZ) Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd thatthe item lacked objectivity and left misleading and damaging impressions. In particular itobjected to the implication that Comalco's electricity was subsidised by domestic consumers,and to the suggestion that its recent pricing agreement with ECNZ was to be kept secret soas to avoid embarrassing the government in the pre-election period. Maintaining that an investigation of the pricing arrangements was in the public interest,TVNZ rejected all aspects of the complaint. It argued that the question about whether thearrangement was a subsidy or a discount was balanced by comment from Comalcoofficials and from energy analysts....

ComplaintHavoc and Newsboy’s Sell Out Tour 2 – allegations about public relations companies – offensive language – inaccurate – unbalanced, biased and unfair FindingsStandard G1 – subsumed Standard G2 – no uphold Standard G4 – serious allegations made – no acknowledgment that they were contestable – uphold Standard G6 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A sequence broadcast during the satirical programme Havoc and Newsboy’s Sell Out Tour 2 on TV2 on 15 August 2000 beginning at 9. 30pm, contained an interview with political activist Nicky Hagar. Mr Hagar made a number of claims about the public relations industry. Among references to various public relations companies, Mr Hagar named Hill & Knowlton, an international company operating in New Zealand, as being responsible for putting a favourable spin on America’s involvement in the Gulf War....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA 990 – allegedly broadcast statement that eight Fijian nationals had died in Christchurch earthquake – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – not news, current affairs or factual programming – clearly caller’s opinion rather than statement of fact – Apna broadcast a follow-up statement – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – caller’s comment was opinion – listeners should have been aware that Apna is a small-scale community radio station and could have sought up-to-date information about the earthquake from larger media outlets – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on aftershocks in Christchurch – was introduced with the statement “it’s just what Christchurch does not want to hear, warnings that a big one, seven on the Richter scale, is probably coming” – included extract of interview with geologist – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, responsible programming and good taste and decency FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – introductory statement inaccurately summarised geologist’s opinion – overstated the prediction of a magnitude seven earthquake by suggesting a high likelihood of occurrence – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – introductory statement was unnecessarily alarmist – likely to have caused undue distress for Christchurch residents – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on a study into the effects of 1080 poison on native robins – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – the use of 1080 as a method for pest control in New Zealand is a controversial issue of public importance – use of 1080 has been the subject of ongoing debate and the item contributed a new development in the debate – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of arguments on both sides of the debate – significant viewpoints were presented in the programme to an extent that was appropriate given the nature of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccurate headlines did not form part of television broadcast so outside our jurisdiction – reporter’s statements were not material to the focus of…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-147:Macskasy and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-147 PDF320. 2 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] In an election advertisement for the National Party, John Key stated, ‘we’ll start paying off debt’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was misleading because Treasury had forecast that debt would increase until 2018. Election advertisements promoting party policies, by their nature, are not ‘factual’. Viewers understand that they are highly political, often hyperbolic vehicles for advocacy, and are able to form their own views about any particular policy. Viewers would not have been misled. Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming), Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy, Misleading Programmes Introduction [1] An advertisement for the National Party was broadcast on TV3 on 28 August 2014....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the documentary series, The Hard Stuff with Nigel Latta, titled ‘Selling Ourselves Short’, focused on the topic of New Zealand’s economy, comparing our standard of living today with the 1960s-70s. The episode examined some of New Zealand’s traditional and upcoming export industries, such as dairy farming, forestry, pharmaceuticals, technology and fashion, and featured interviews with farmers, business owners, economists and academics. At the beginning of the episode, Mr Latta stated, ‘We’re rated as one of the best places in the world to do business and we’re not corrupt. ’ The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Mr Latta’s statement was inaccurate and that the episode was unbalanced because it did not address New Zealand’s ‘extensive corruption’ as a reason for our underperforming economy....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about voluntary ‘DIY’ sperm donation in New Zealand, and in particular the complainant’s history of frequent sperm donations, breached broadcasting standards relating to privacy, fairness and accuracy. The Authority found there was a high level of public interest in discussing the risks associated with using DIY sperm donors, as well as CA’s extensive donation history in particular, which outweighed the potential harm to CA. The Authority concluded the programme did not disclose any private information about CA, and overall CA was treated fairly and was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to allegations made about him in the programme. Doorstepping CA (approaching him on the street with cameras rolling) was not unfair in the circumstances, and he willingly engaged in a lengthy interview with the reporter....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that two guest panellists’ comments on The AM Show about English rugby players following the Rugby World Cup final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. Discussing some players’ refusal to wear their silver medals after losing the final, the panellists made comments including that the English players were ‘pouty little babies, pathetic, stupid, dumb, bad sportsmanship’, ‘petulant English kids’, ‘prats’, ‘it’s their upbringing’, ‘those English players who wanted to toss their medals on the ground’. The complaint was that these comments were nasty and offensive, and ‘racist’ by suggesting ‘it’s [the players’] upbringing’. The Authority noted the large majority of the comments were clearly directed at the individual players concerned, rather than commenting on a group of people....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint two items on 1 News reporting on a political poll and interviewing several New Zealanders on the street breached multiple broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the proportion of people interviewed was not an accurate or balanced representation of the political mood of the country, which was unfair to political parties, and certain comments constituted discrimination and denigration, or were inaccurate or unfair. The Authority held it was not a breach of broadcasting standards to feature ‘vox-pop’ interviews in proportions that do not match current political polling, and the standards either did not apply or were not breached in relation to other issues raised by the complainant concerning the broadcast. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two interviews on Morning Report, which explored the propriety of funding for a campaign to encourage Māori to register on the Māori electoral roll, breached the balance and accuracy standards. The complainant said the interviews with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, Chair of the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency (WOCA) which funded the campaign, and with Hon Shane Jones, who was asked to comment on the issue, displayed ‘anti-Māori bias’. Noting the broadcast incorrectly stated WOCA was a government agency, the complainant also said listeners would be left with an impression there was corruption taking place based on a false assumption. The Authority found the balance standard was not breached as significant perspectives about the advertising campaign were presented in the broadcast and in other media within the period of current interest....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 150/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J M STEVENSON of Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...