Search

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Prime News – news items on train collision near Wellington – first item stated that “A South-bound train then ran into the derailed engine” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Items on Prime News, broadcast on Prime TV at 5. 30pm on Thursday 30 September 2010, reported on a train collision near Wellington. In the first item, the presenter stated: A landslide caused by heavy rain is thought to have caused today’s collision of two commuter trains north of Wellington. The incident happened at Pukerua Bay when a north bound train was derailed by a slip. A south bound train then ran into the derailed engine. No one was injured....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2011-485-1110 PDF1. 92 MBMary Anne Shanahan declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item and follow-up item questioned “Where has all the aid money gone?...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on Haitian Vodou – interviewed New Zealand vodou high priest and one of his spiritual children – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – interviewee’s partner could have been identified through their relationship but no private facts disclosed in a highly offensive manner – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – points raised by the complainants were not material points of fact – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Haitian Vodou not an organisation to which the standard applies – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcast did not carry invective necessary to encourage denigration of, or discrimination against, Haitian Vodou believers as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Waitangi: What Really Happened – docu-drama about events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Waitangi: What Really Happened was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 6 February 2011. The programme was a docu-drama following the events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – four items reporting special investigation into Ministry of Social Development’s “Community Max” projects questioned how millions of dollars had been spent – reporter visited sites of six projects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on the issue within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – very small number of minor points had the potential to be misleading – however in the context of four items which legitimately questioned government spending upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – MSD should expect that as a government Ministry it is subject to scrutiny…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – featured a story on the experience of a tenant whose family allegedly suffered health problems as a result of living on a property that contained traces of methamphetamine – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that the house was formerly used to manufacture methamphetamine – overstated evidence, for example by reference to the “house” and “home” as opposed to just the garage, and by creating impression a ‘P’ lab had existed when the contamination was marginal and could have been caused by smoking – failed to outline the parameters of the FISL report or make any reference to NZDDA report which found no trace of methamphetamine – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld Standard 6…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on Christchurch homeowners living in the government’s red zone with regard to their replacement insurance policies – interviewed Tower Insurance customer who had been advised that his replacement insurance would cover the cost of repairing his damaged house but not its full replacement value – visited Tower’s head office – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Campbell Live exhausted all legitimate methods to obtain comment from Tower – Mr Campbell’s approach polite and non-confrontational – door-stepping used as a means of obtaining information and constructive comment – not unfair to Tower or the receptionist – reference to email a fair summary of its contents – overall Tower treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 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 court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – contained footage of SPCA raid at his property and photographs of cats and dogs – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – photographs legitimately obtained by SPCA – use of archive footage justified given ongoing interest in Mr Balfour’s activities and properties – footage of dogs in a playpen was innocuous and used as visual wallpaper to report on court proceedings in which Mr Balfour was found guilty of serious charges – footage of Mr Balfour being served with search warrant was not obtained by “prying” – harm to Mr Balfour in terms of underlying objective of privacy standard resulted from conviction, not the item – item did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on saving fuel costs – contained a number statements about hybrid cars, including the following comment which referred to the Toyota Prius, “The bottom line is that the British Consumer’s Institute just did a comparison between a diesel car and a hybrid car and found that the diesel car was in fact more efficient....

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 Education Advertisement – National Party leader and Prime Minister John Key stated, “National is building a better education system, with school reports in plain English. . . ” – statement allegedly inaccurate and misleading FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 5 (accuracy) of Free-to-Air Television Code – advertisement did not state as fact that all school reports would be written in the English language – “plain English” was colloquial way of stating “easy to understand” – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An advertisement for the New Zealand National Party was broadcast on TV One on 2 November 2011 at approximately 9. 30pm....

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 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussion about recent release of controversial Barbie doll – panellist suggested there was a market in the Muslim world for “terrorist Barbie”, and in response the host suggested “suicide bomber Barbie” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellists were offering commentary and opinion in a satirical manner, making the point that the marketers of Barbie dolls were smart to release controversial Barbies – comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Muslims as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were light-hearted and intended to be satirical/a joke – most viewers would not have been offended or distressed by the comments taking into account the context – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview about housing market in Auckland – interviewer commented, “with section prices actually falling in some of the city’s outlying areas” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – host’s brief comment in the introduction was not a material point of fact in the context of the interview – comment would not have materially altered listeners’ understanding of the issues discussed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During Nine to Noon, the host interviewed the chair of the Productivity Commission about the Commission’s recent report on housing affordability, provided to the Government in March 2012. The host introduced the interview as follows: Our next guest is here to talk about Auckland property prices going balmy. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported on Australia’s recent attempts to reduce pollution by introducing a carbon tax scheme – referred to “pollution”, “polluters” and “carbon” – allegedly inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item used simplified language to convey scientific concepts to the average viewer – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 10 July 2011, reported on Australia’s recent attempts to reduce pollution by introducing a carbon tax scheme. The item contained the following statements:“Australia is following New Zealand’s lead on reducing pollution by unveiling a new carbon tax scheme. ” (newsreader) “The science is clear. Our planet is warming. That warming is caused by carbon pollution by human activity and we need to cut carbon pollution....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on a threat made against MP Sue Bradford that was published under the username GarfieldNZ on the website Twitter – news reporter tracked down the individual who owned the username – contained footage of reporter knocking on the front door of the individual’s house and talking to him about the threat – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item showed the wording of the Twitter message – viewers not misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of door-stepping did not disadvantage the complainant – complainant’s response provided to viewers – not upheld 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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nelson Newstalk ZB interview following local body elections – Mayor of Nelson commented on his lessened majority – stated that Grey Power had been “hijacked” by members of his opponent’s team – allegedly unbalanced, unfair, inaccurate and encouraged denigration Findings Principle 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – no persons treated unfairly – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – expression of opinion – standard does not apply – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) and Guideline 7a (denigration) – expression of opinion – standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A broadcast on Nelson Newstalk ZB on 11 October 2004 at around 11. 30am featured an interview with the winning Mayors of Nelson (Paul Matheson) and Tasman (John Hurley)....

Complaint20/20 – statement broadcast about a complaint upheld by the Authority – inaccurate – misleading – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – statement broadcast accurate – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair – complainant did not take part nor referred to – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] TV3 was ordered to broadcast a statement about a complaint that had been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The statement was broadcast on TV3 at the end of a 20/20 programme at approximately 8. 30pm on 30 March 2003. [2] Mark Scott complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the statement broadcast was inaccurate, misleading and unfair. As the producer of the item to which the statement related, he argued that the statement was incorrect because he had evidence to the contrary....