Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-034 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-007 Decision No: 1998-008 Decision No: 1998-009 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLAN HILL of Wellington and GLADYS GARDNER of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – update on a previous item about a used Ferrari – item reported that Continental Car Services Ltd had “refused to hand over” a statement of compliance for the vehicle – item implied that CCS was engaging in restrictive trade practices – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – TVNZ upheld two points as inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained several inaccurate and misleading statements – item as a whole was also inaccurate – action taken by TVNZ insufficient – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to CCS and Mr Pitt – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,283. 00 Payment of costs to the Crown $2500. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

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....

ComplaintOffice Goss – The Edge – caller claimed that a school principal was a lesbian in relationship with another teacher – breach – good taste – privacy – fairness – accuracyFindingsNo tape available – decline to determine – s. 11(b) – warningName of complainant and town of residence deleted to preserve privacyThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] To protect the privacy of the persons referred to in this complaint, the Authority makes an order deleting reference to the complainant other than by initials, and deleting reference to the town from which the complaint emanated. [2] The programme Office Goss was broadcast by The Edge. In the programme broadcast between 7. 30–8....

ComplaintOne News – 4, 5, 10 August – NZRFU receptionist advised caller of the availability of scalped tickets – receptionist described as a "go-between" and later as "at the centre" of the scam – covert recording of telephone conversation – inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfair to use covert call given public interest – no uphold; unfair not to broadcast full summary of covert call – uphold Standards G7, G13, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Following up on information received, a TVNZ journalist, without identifying himself, telephoned the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRFU) to ask about the availability of a ticket for a forthcoming test match. The call was recorded covertly....

ComplaintEureka – Royal Commission on Genetic Modification – GE Free rally – rally participants interviewed – approach assured participants rejected Commission findings – views misrepresented – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 5 – interviewees not treated unfairly – no uphold Principle 6 – factual reports and opinion distinguished – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with one of the Commissioners from the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, and comments from participants at a GE-Free rally, were included in the edition of Eureka broadcast on National Radio on 9 September 2001 and repeated on 10 September. Eureka is a science magazine programme broadcast weekly. [2] Jon Carapiet complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme’s approach was unbalanced as the item sought to represent those at the rally as ill-informed. Consequently, he said, their views were misrepresented....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on damage caused by Christchurch earthquake – showed footage of poultry shed – news reader stated “And this is a destroyed battery hen farm, home to 26,000 chickens. Animal rights activists say that up to a third of them were trapped and suffocating” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement a material point of fact – said that chickens were “suffocating” not that they had “suffocated” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and farm not identified – item did not reflect badly on complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 7 September 2010, reported on the large scale damage caused by the Christchurch earthquake....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

The Authority has not upheld an accuracy complaint about a 1News segment on the dangers of crossing sand bars. In the segment, a Coastguard representative said, ‘We recommend crossing the bar at high or low tide, so we can try and take the current out of the equation’. The complaint alleged the recommendation to cross at low tide was ‘wrong’ and ‘dangerous’ and Coastguard were not an authoritative source regarding maritime matters. The Authority considered there were reasonable arguments for a finding the statement was not materially inaccurate in the context of the broadcast. The segment’s overall emphasis was on the dangers and complexity in crossing sand bars, and the statement addressed just one of several risk factors mentioned. In any event, the Authority found it was reasonable for the broadcaster to rely on information provided by the Coastguard representative on this topic. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a 1News item on 80-year commemorations for D-Day breached the accuracy standard by stating that D-Day ‘was the turning point in the war against Nazi Germany’. The complainant considered this was inaccurate as D-Day was only the turning point for the Western Front, not the Eastern Front or World War II as a whole. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy was not material to the segment, and would not have impacted audience’s understanding of the broadcast as a whole. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out during an anti-terror raid in Brussels. During the item, the Europe Correspondent stated, ‘We’ve now heard that one suspect has been neutralised’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the term ‘neutralised’ was not accurate, appropriate or neutral language. The Authority found the choice of language was not a material point of fact in the item, which focused on an anti-terror raid linked to the Paris terror attacks. Further, the term ‘neutralised’ is at times used in the context of reporting on police or counter-terrorism action. The use of this term was not biased against, and did not imply fault on the part of, the Belgian Police. Not upheld: Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A news item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out that occurred during an anti terror raid in Brussels....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 55/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KEITH AND KAY BURGESS of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 111/94 Dated the 17th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND IMMIGRATION SERVICE Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson R A Barraclough L M Loates...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-094 Decision No: 1996-095 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 15 December 1997 focussed on two teenage girls whose mother had died, owing about $2,000 to Adelphi Finance. The broadcast related how the girls’ father had moved in to care for them and how, shortly after, furniture in their house had been repossessed on behalf of that company. Adelphi Finance Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was factually inaccurate, distorted the actual events, was unbalanced and partial, and presented a misleading impression of both the complainant and the circumstances of the repossession. TVNZ responded that the complainant was given every opportunity to present its side and to have it included in the item. Further, it noted that a studio summation of the complainant’s case was included at the end of the broadcast....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1News item on rising gang membership, which featured archival footage of gang members. The complainant said the broadcast breached the promotion of illegal or antisocial behaviour, balance and accuracy standards on the basis the footage promoted gang activity/membership and misrepresented the current situation where gang patches and insignia are banned in public. In the context of the item, the Authority did not consider the likely impact of the visual content was to encourage illegal or antisocial behaviour. It also found the content was unlikely to mislead reasonable viewers regarding current gang activity. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Balance, Accuracy...