Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Is Milk Safe? – documentary based on ABC programme “White Mischief” – examined possible differences in health benefits of A1 and A2 milk – allegedly unbalanced as complainant argued that it suggested A2 only was safeFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – significant points of view advanced about both A1 and A2 milk – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A documentary Is Milk Safe? was broadcast on Dunedin’s Channel 9 at 8. 30pm on 14 June 2004. Using an ABC 4 Corners item “White Mischief”, it examined some of the differences between A1 and A2 milk. Complaint [2] Leslie Simpson complained to Channel 9 that the programme did not address the question of the safety of milk. Rather, it dealt with the differences between A1 and A2 milk....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – news item on puppies being euthanized by Invercargill City Council – included interview with the mayor of Invercargill – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns did not relate to a material point of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Breakfast’s news segment, broadcast on TV One at 8. 05am on Thursday 20 August 2009, reported on puppies being destroyed by Invercargill City Council. The presenter stated: Invercargill’s Mayor is standing by his Council amid accusations that it’s unnecessarily killing puppies....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – graphic “Election 2011” during election coverage included ticked blue box – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – use of the logo did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – broadcaster entitled to editorial discretion to use standard graphics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During One News election coverage broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 18 October 2011, a logo was displayed stating “Election 2011”, which included a blue box with a white tick mark....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 87/94 Dated the 29th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CREDO SOCIETY INCORPORATED of Auckland Broadcaster ACCESS COMMUNITY RADIO AUCKLAND INCORPORATED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 4/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AMBLA (AUSTRALASIAN MAN BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-062 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GERALD MOONEN of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 58/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCILLORS Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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: 1998-034 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK EDEN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Kaea – item on 26 May reported that Ngati Porou was preparing to implement Foreshore and Seabed Deed of Agreement – allegedly unbalanced Te Kaea – follow-up item on 10 July stated that three sub-tribes opposed the agreement – included comment from representatives of tribes – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings26 May item Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – brief news item on Ngati Porou signing the Deed and what would happen next – indicated that it would be a challenge to gain support of all relevant parties – not necessary to mention groups that did not consider themselves Ngati Porou – not upheld 10 July item Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – information piece about opposition to foreshore and seabed agreement – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two items about the disappearance of a six-year-old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies in either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – 5 December broadcast not unfair to mother of six-year-old boy – complainant did not specify any person in the 20 December broadcast who was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item discussed the case of an elderly woman who bought an expensive vacuum cleaner from a door-to-door salesman – item included an interview with the door-to-door salesman and a representative from the Consumers’ Institute – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and the action taken subsequently to correct an inaccuracy was insufficient Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – action taken by the broadcaster to correct the inaccuracy was sufficient – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item gave the company and salesman an adequate opportunity to respond – host’s comment did not imply companies that sold expensive vacuum cleaners were dishonest – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

Complaint 20/20 – "The Goons" – item about Christchurch Prison Emergency Response Unit – inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandards 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracies (i) did not "order" penis incident; (ii) not found guilty of 21 breaches of code of conduct – uphold on these 2 points – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – complainant no opportunity to present views – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "The Goons", an item on 20/20, was broadcast by TV3 at 7. 30pm on 9 June 2002. The item investigated the activities of the Christchurch Prison Emergency Response Unit (ERU), referred to by some as the "Goon Squad". [2] Doug Smith complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item contained a number of inaccurate statements, and was unbalanced....

ComplaintDestiny Television: Homosexuality, Religion and God – series of six programmes delivering religious sermons – denigration of and discrimination against homosexual and transsexual people – offensive – inconsistent with legislation – errors of fact – not impartial – TVNZ upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from repeat broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspect upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings(1) Action taken on Standard 6 – insufficient – uphold (2) Standard 2 Guideline 2a – did not involve principle of law – no uphold (3) Standard 4, Standard 5 – not relevant – not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – no uphold OrderComplaints referred back to broadcaster under s. 13(1)(c) for further consideration of action to be taken This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint3 News – item about New Zealand First party convention – Winston Peters described as having "once again played the race card" – inaccurate – unjust and unfair – item lacked balance and impartiality FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate to state Mr Peters played the "race card" – no uphold Standard G3 – item acknowledged right of Mr Peters and his supporters to express their opinions – no uphold Standard G4 – Mr Peters not dealt with unjustly or unfairly – no uphold Standard G6 – item not lacking in balance, impartiality or fairness – no uphold Standard G7 – no deceptive programming practice – decline to determine Standard G13 – no uphold Standard G14 – no uphold Standard G19 – editing did not distort views – no uphold Standard G20 – views fairly presented – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – story about “moon man” Ken Ring and his claims he predicted Christchurch earthquakes – John Campbell interviewed Mr Ring – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ring was treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – Mr Ring’s predictions were a controversial issue of public importance – his views were presented within the period of current interest in other media coverage – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainants did not specify which aspects of the programme they considered to be inaccurate, or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....