Search Rapua

A news segment on The AM Show about name suppression included a clip from an interview with former Attorney-General, Chris Finlayson QC, which had been broadcast live on air earlier in the programme. The clip from the interview played during the news item related to Mr Finlayson’s comments about bullying allegations in Parliament, rather than his views on name suppression laws. The broadcaster acknowledged this clip placement was in error. A complaint was made that this error was significantly inaccurate, as it would have misled viewers as to Mr Finlayson’s views regarding name suppression laws. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding that while the broadcaster made an error in playing the clip during that particular news segment, it was not significantly misleading in the context of the item as a whole. The Authority acknowledged the technical mistake and did not uphold the complaint. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority declined to determine two complaints as they did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards that warrant a determination. Decline to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint, under the accuracy standard, about an episode of Our Changing World. The Authority considered the complaint, about the use of the word ‘English’ instead of ‘British’ trivial. Declined to Determine: Accuracy (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial)...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-042:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-042 PDF365. 34 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintLate Edition – Breakfast – alleged rat infestation in Helensville – no evidence of rats – community views not sought – item unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandard G14 – item failed to uphold standards of accuracy, impartiality and objectivity – uphold OrderCosts of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on TV One on Late Edition on 6 June 2001, and on Breakfast on 7 June 2001, dealt with an alleged infestation of rats in and around Helensville. Hans Van Duyn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair and lacked balance. He said the only person interviewed was a former Helensville Mayor, Mr Eric Glavish, who had his own "reasons or agenda to make unsubstantiated allegations"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on New Zealand protestor’s decision to travel to Gaza with his son as part of a humanitarian aid flotilla – commented on recent Israeli commando raid on another aid flotilla – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on one man – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Close Up was an unclassified current affairs programme – item would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye – focused on a chemical named paraphenylenediamine – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate or misleading statements – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to seek comment from the industry body – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on TV One’s Close Up programme, broadcast on 25 May 2007 at 7pm, discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio New Zealand National News – item concerning MAF’s approval of the importation by zoos of crocodiles and salt-water alligators – allegedly in breach of accuracy and social responsibility Findings Principle 6 (accuracy) and Principle 7 (social responsibility) – complainant mistaken as to the contents of the broadcast – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the 7pm news bulletin on Radio New Zealand National on 24 April 2008, the following item was introduced: Crocodiles and alligators have been approved for import. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has agreed to allow zoos to bring in Australian salt-water crocodiles and American alligators....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – host discussed recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai – made various comments about Muslims and terrorism – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – programme was an opinion piece – lacked the necessary invective to cross the threshold for denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues - viewpoints) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Muslim people – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item describing shooting down in Iraq of US military helicopter by “enemy fire” – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – balance provided in period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate in this context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item which described the shooting down in Iraq of a US military helicopter by “enemy fire” was broadcast on One News on 3 January 2004 at 6. 00pm. Complaint [2] Simon Delahunt complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that describing Iraqis as the “enemy” was unbalanced and inaccurate. In his view, the use of this: … subjective, generic term forg[ed] an identification between the New Zealand viewer and the occupier of Iraq....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item about Tana Umaga’s appointment as All Black captain – reference to Mr Umaga’s dreadlocks – presenter allegedly implied that dreadlocked sportspeople are incompetent and engage in sexually deviant behaviour and law breaking – allegedly breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter’s comments innocuous – neither indecent nor in bad taste – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – matters complained about not expressed or implied in the broadcast – no basis for any of the complainant’s allegations in presenter’s comments – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 98/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BARRY BARCLAY of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 158/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LLOYD MINCHINGTON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-048 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CREDO SOCIETY INC Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary An item on 60 Minutes focussed on the Philadelphia Police Force, its Commissioner and its facilities and practices. The introduction to the item summarised some perceived problems of the New Zealand Police Force. The item was broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1998 commencing at 7. 30 pm. Deputy Commissioner Barry Matthews on behalf of the New Zealand Police complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate. He also complained that the item was unbalanced in failing to allow New Zealand Police the opportunity to present their crime strategies, and explain why the American practices were inapplicable. TVNZ responded that the item was not about the New Zealand Police, and so input from them was unnecessary....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News at Midday – reported on alleged immigration scam and Gerard Otimi’s appearance in court – included a graphic “Immigration Scam” – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic not inaccurate in context of whole item which referred to “alleged” scam and “charges” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – would have been clearer to phrase graphic as a question – item made it clear the scam was “alleged” and Mr Otimi was facing charges – absence of question mark did not result in Mr Otimi being treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item reported on Mr Otimi’s appearance in Court – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1C)(c)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item looked at the business practices of a private chiropractic practice called The Spinal Health Foundation and its resident chiropractor, Dr Sean Parker – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not imply that Dr Parker was offering personal loans to patients or that pre-pay arrangements were unethical – statement relating to possible breaches of ethics was sufficiently qualified – not upheld – decline to determine point relating to changing of paperwork under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standard 6 (fairness) – questions asked of Dr Parker were generic – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – broadcaster treated Dr Parker fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on 13 June about a 12-year-old Palestinian girl after six members of her family were killed by a shell on a Gaza beach – item suggested that shell was Israeli which had been fired in response to homemade rockets fired from Gaza – allegedly inaccurate for using falsified footage3 News – item on 14 June reported conflicting claims about who was responsible for the killing on the Gaza beach – denied by Israeli Defence Force (IDF) but Human Rights Watch said Israel was responsible – also included footage of another Israeli shell fired into Gaza which killed militants and innocent bystanders – allegedly unbalanced as it did not include evidence released by IDFFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – significant views advanced about controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no evidence that falsified footage used –…...