Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Victoria’s Empire – presenter made statements about the use of the drug opium by Chinese people in the early nineteenth century – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenter did not state that the Chinese as a people were addicted to opium in 1839 – reasonable viewers would have understood that the presenter’s comments were included in an historical context to explain the onset of the Opium Wars – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant misinterpreted the presenter’s statement – presenter’s comments did not denigrate Chinese people – Chinese people treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Victoria’s Empire was broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reporting that Michael Jackson’s appearance at the World Music Awards had disappointed both critics and fans – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item did not include material which breached good taste and decency norms – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Michael Jackson – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Michael Jackson’s appearance at the World Music Awards in London was covered in an item broadcast on One News on TV One on 17 November 2006 beginning at 6. 00pm....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Simulcast by broadcasters of the Good Vibrations Carnival at Cooper’s Beach between 1pm and 5pm Saturday 15 April 2006 – carnival organised as community response to Dr Neil Benson’s plan to open a brothel at Cooper’s Beach – broadcast included comments critical of brothel proposal and extracts critical of the proposal from the meeting at Mangonui Town Hall organised to discuss brothel proposal – broadcasts allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsDoubtless Bay Family RadioPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – approach taken in broadcast clearly explained and reasonable opportunities given for other significant points of view – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – Bensons not dealt with unfairly – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – brothel owners not denigrated or discriminated against – not upheldFar…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-021 Decision No: 1996-022 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WINTON ALLEN of Lower Hutt and A G T WANE of Warkworth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Radio – Nine to Noon – interview with a grandmother campaigning against prescription of the drug Ritalin – grandmother not medically qualified made allegedly inaccurate statements – item allegedly unbalanced and unfair as it failed to present expert medical opinionFindings Principle 4 (balance) – personal perspective – balanced mainstream view – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – not relevant – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – mixture of fact and opinion – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Authority unable to establish number of people being prescribed Ritalin in New Zealand – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player. A doctor from ACC said it may well have been unethical for a doctor to use finance as a barrier to treatment....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on the new Emissions Trading Scheme reported that “farmers may have to fork out an extra $3000 a year in pollution taxes by the year 2030” and that “agriculture is our biggest polluter” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – acceptable shorthand for communicating a scientific concept to the audience – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Wednesday 18 November 2009, discussed the Government’s new Emissions Trading Scheme. The news presenter introduced the item by saying: Farmers may have to fork out an extra $3000 a year in pollution taxes by the year 2030. The Prime Minister says the Agricultural Sector must pay its share under the Emissions Trading Scheme....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an editorial segment on KPMG Early Edition, host Rachel Smalley discussed the standing down of British Labour MP Naz Shah after accusations of anti-Semitism. Ms Smalley went on to question why criticism of Israel is often viewed as criticism of the Jewish faith, referring to comments she made during a broadcast in 2014 which were critical of Israel and the ‘abuse’ she received in response. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that Ms Smalley’s reference to her previous comments was misleading – partly because she did not refer to the Authority’s finding that one of her previous statements was inaccurate – and that the item was unbalanced....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on an upcoming boxing match between Joseph Parker and Andy Ruiz for the World Boxing Organisation (WBO) heavyweight champion title. The presenter introduced the item by saying, ‘Well, the fight is set to make history whichever way it goes. There’s never been a New Zealand or Mexican world heavyweight champion’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s statement was inaccurate because a New Zealander, Robert ‘Bob’ Fitzsimmons, was the first heavyweight champion in 1897. The complaint related to a technical interpretation of Fitzsimmons’ nationality, which was not a material point of fact that was likely to mislead viewers in the context of this news item....

ComplaintIt’s Your Money – item on two men looking for love – criticism of The Company Company Ltd, which provides organised singles events – unfair, unbalanced, inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – programme not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – Company able to respond on the programme to criticisms made – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The episode of It’s Your Money which screened on TV2 at 8pm on 12 February 2001 was sub-titled "Looking for Love". The programme looked at the experiences of two men, each of whom had spent time and money trying to find a female partner. The programme examined the various options open to the men, such as dating agencies, internet dating, and event organisers, and explored whether clients of these organisations were getting value for money....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a comment made by business commentator, Rod Oram, during a segment on Nine to Noon. The Authority found that Mr Oram’s view as to the effectiveness of a former Chair of a seed business was an opinion that is not subject to the accuracy standard. Not Upheld: Accuracy The item[1] A segment on Nine to Noon featured business commentator Rod Oram discussing the sale of a seed business. During the discussion Mr Oram said one of the former Chairs had been ‘highly effective’ in their previous roles. [2] The item was broadcast on 7 August 2018 on RNZ National. The complaint[3] Allan Golden complained that Mr Oram’s statement about the effectiveness of the former Chair was ‘not true’ as Mr Golden believed they had not been ‘highly effective’....

In an episode of The AM Show, host, Duncan Garner, interviewed economist Cameron Bagrie on the topic of dropping interest rates. During the interview, Mr Bagrie commented regarding the risk of people no longer putting money in the bank, saying, ‘the banks need the money in the bank, because they gotta … get a dollar in the door before they can put the money out the door in the form of a loan. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that Mr Bagrie’s statement was clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion so the accuracy standard does not apply. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included Colmar Brunton poll results on the percentage of party votes for major political parties – results did not take account of “undecided voters” – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – omission of undecided voters not material given the focus and context of the item which was the decline in the level of support for the National Party – potential harm in terms of impact on voter participation was not significant given the length of time until next general election – viewers would not have been misled in any material respect – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3 News reported details of John Key’s meeting with the Indonesian president. The newsreader discussed terrorism in Indonesia and referred to Indonesia as ‘the biggest Muslim country in the world’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this statement was inaccurate, finding that viewers would have understood the intended meaning that the majority of Indonesians are followers of Muslim faith. The Authority also declined to uphold the complaint that the discussion of terrorism in Indonesia denigrated Muslims and/or Indonesians, as it was factual and did not carry any invective. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration   Introduction [1] An item on 3 News reported details of John Key’s meeting with the Indonesian president....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-052:Collins and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-052 PDF521. 77 KB...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go was unfair to the fencing contractor investigated. The Authority found that the fencing contractor was not treated fairly, due to the way he was set-up to be interviewed (under the guise of calling him to a job) and because he was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him in the programme. The Authority also found that the inclusion of information about the contractor’s past which had a criminal element was unfair as it was not relevant to the issues being investigated in this item and contributed to an unfairly negative impression of him. The accuracy complaint was not upheld as the item did not mislead or present inaccurate information, and the balance standard did not apply as the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance....