Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-049 Decision No: 1997-050 Dated the 21st day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CAPITAL COAST HEALTH (2) Broadcasters RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED and THE RADIO NETWORK LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-147 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOYCE HEIJBOER CAMPBELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-067 Dated the 25th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK DONNELLY, on behalf of EDEN PARK NEIGHBOURS' ASSOCIATION of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Issues – talkback host suggested commercial parking requirements involved double standards on part of Nelson City Council and “bordered on corruption” – host a potential candidate for Nelson mayoralty – inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – standard not applicable to broadcast – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opinions expressed based on inaccurate facts – unfair – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Issues broadcast by Mainland Television in Nelson on Monday evenings is a programme in which guests discuss matters with the host, Gary Watson. Opportunity is also provided for viewers to call in and discuss matters with the guest and the host. [2] Parking requirements for commercial businesses in Nelson was one of the topics discussed on Issues on Monday 8 December 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Beyond the Darklands: Bert Potter – programme was a case study of Bert Potter based on analysis by a clinical psychologist and recollections of former members of his Centrepoint commune – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme was a case study by psychologist of Bert Potter and his involvement in Centrepoint – historical interest for viewers but no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate points of fact – programme would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individuals or organisations treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – item on Māori TV’s bid for the free-to-air broadcasting rights to the Rugby World Cup – included satirical sketch about what Māori TV’s coverage would look like – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – legitimate satire – lacked necessary invective to cross threshold for denigration of Māori as a section of the community – Māori TV not a section of the community – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Māori TV treated fairly – Pita Shaples and Julian Wilcox treated fairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item was satire – did not “discuss” a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussing possible organised crime involvement in the black market tobacco trade – interviewed tobacco growers – one interviewee stated that he was no longer growing tobacco, but aerial footage of his property showed that he was – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item inaccurate, but not significant in the context of the item overall – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the complainant or to another interviewee – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item on formaldehyde levels in imported clothing – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme would have misled and unnecessarily alarmed viewers in its presentation of formaldehyde test results – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $4,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 August 2007. The programme discussed the use of formaldehyde, “a highly toxic chemical that can be fatal”, in the manufacture of clothing. The presenter stated that formaldehyde was used to help keep fabric stain-free, wrinkle-free and disinfected....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live talkback – complainant strongly criticised the host’s approach in an interview with Georgina te Heuheu MP – after some two minutes of uninterrupted comment, the host cut off caller and, while declining to identify her, said that she had her own agendas and that she shouldn’t ring because it wasn’t appropriate for her to call talkback – broadcaster’s approach allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – complainant’s criticism of host and host’s criticism of complainant were not controversial issues of public importance - standard does not apply – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – host’s critical response to experienced caller’s criticisms in robust talkback environment not unfair – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – standard does not apply as exchange was neither news nor current affairs – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Asia Down Under and One News – One News item replayed significant footage screened on Asia Down Under earlier in the morning – programmes addressed issue of need for regulation of immigration consultants – profiled situation of Korean family, the Yangs, who were seeking permanent residency in New Zealand – outlined Yangs’ dealings with immigration consultancy firm Wasan International Co Ltd and its director Edward Kang – discussed high fees charged and lack of success in their applications to date – Asia Down Under team arrived unannounced at Wasan Ltd’s offices and requested interview with Mr Kang – used comments on wider issue from Immigration Minister Paul Swain – used comments from representative of New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment – Asia Down Under reported police and NZAMI investigations of Wasan Ltd – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance)…...

ComplaintThe Tribe – teen drama series – violence – unsuitable viewing material for children Findings Standards 4, 5 & 6 – not relevant – decline to determine Standard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 2 – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for teenage audience – no uphold Standard 10 – violence ritualistic and symbolic – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An episode of The Tribe, a "futuristic teen drama" was broadcast on TV3 on Sunday 14 July 2002 at 9. 50am. [2] Francis Fielding complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained violence and was inappropriate viewing material for children. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr Fielding referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA 990 – Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon – caller allegedly referred to the complainant and his wife – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 3 (privacy), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – recording of broadcast in Hindi and translation incomplete – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] At approximately 7. 30pm on APNA 990 on 26 August 2010, the radio host spoke to a caller during a Pakistan Flood Appeal Talkathon. The caller commented to the effect that his neighbours had “run away”. Complaint[2] Moh Lateef made a formal complaint to APNA Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the caller was referring to him and his wife, as they lived on the same street as the caller....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – discussed government’s Te Reo Māori initiatives – host read out email from listener who said that their grandmother had been beaten at school for speaking Te Reo – host stated, “I think this is a myth, to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t know of anywhere this happened....

Ms Loates declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint 20/20 – documentary – mental health outpatient– inaccuracies – lacked balance – discrimination against mental health patients – verbal agreement about interview content Findings(1) Standard G1 – inaccuracies not proven – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided where required through interview with mental health provider – no further imbalance proven – mentally ill not portrayed as inferior – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 20/20 called "Flatmate Wanted" was broadcast on TV3 on 12 September 1999, from 7. 30pm. The item concerned the deaths of Lachlan Jones and Malcolm Beggs and was critical of the mental health system, which it implicated in the deaths....

Complaints under sections 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on the alleged practice of women offering sex in exchange for taxi rides – showed nightlife footage of central Auckland including shots of a number of young women – reporter interviewed taxi drivers and stated that one taxi driver had allegedly accepted sex in exchange for a taxi ride – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and violence FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Ms Smith and taxi driver were not identifiable – Ms Gardner was identifiable but the item did not disclose any private facts about her – the footage of women was used as visual wallpaper for the story and clearly was not suggesting that the women were associated with the practice reported on, which was reinforced by a clarification broadcast the following night…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item profiled the complainant, Donald McDonald – introduction referred to some of his previous complaints including “that a One News isobar on the weather map was a subliminal advertisement for the movie Shrek”, and that he “complained to the Wellington City Council that its fireworks displays contained phallic symbols” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not suggest that all or most of his complaints were unfounded but that Mr McDonald complained “too often about too little” – provided context to complaints and complainant put forward his own perspective – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of fairness This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Party Infrastructure Advertisement – contained images of infrastructure that was allegedly planned, consented, funded and mostly completed under the previous Labour Government – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) of the Free-to-Air TV Code – advertisement created impression that the National-led Government had a role in the examples of infrastructure shown – however language in the advertisement was couched in present and forward-looking terms rather than looking at past achievements – not inaccurate – fairness standard only applies to individuals or organisations taking part or referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....