Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-050:Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-050 PDF297. 88 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-051:Greer and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1991-051 PDF815. 03 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-085:National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-085 PDF502. 9 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-128:Colina and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-128 PDF392. 47 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Coast FM News reported that Zero Commission ‘has been making low ball offers’ to shareholders of various companies. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that Zero Commission and its shareholders were treated unfairly as no opportunity was given to respond to the claims or the negative impression created. The minority did not consider the item was unfair as Zero Commission could reasonably expect some commentary from time to time that it would not like or agree with. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the use of the term ‘low ball’ was inaccurate as this was a subjective term, not a point of fact. The controversial issues standard was not applicable because the item focused squarely on one company, not a controversial issue of public importance....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven items on Morning Report contained references to greenhouse gas emissions, specifically agricultural emissions and the outcomes of discussions at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP 21). The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging it was inaccurate and unbalanced to state or infer that livestock emissions amount to half of New Zealand’s total emissions. The Authority found that references to the amount of livestock emissions in several of the items were not material points of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. In relation to the other items the Authority was satisfied that the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy as it drew on a range of reputable sources and scientific evidence in support of the statements made....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether surprise witness at the retrial had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to not include viewpoints of the defence and David Bain – not upheld – Daryl Young was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – it was an authorial documentary approached from a particular perspective as envisaged by guideline 4b…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – documentary about Phenomena Academy in Fiordland – NZQA accredited institution that teaches how to be healthy and happy – questions raised as to whether students under undue influence from Academy’s founder Aiping Wang – focussed on experience of four former students who were critical of her methods – complaint made by general manager of Academy – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – Academy representatives given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations – lengthy interviews with Aiping Wang and with complainant – views were clearly communicated – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – other statements not inaccurate – not unnecessarily alarmist – no evidence of lack of editorial independence – upheld on two aspects Standard 6 (fairness) – participants given adequate and reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations made – views were clearly…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six taxi companies in Auckland – noted that driver of Green Cab had looked down at something six times during the journey – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster was entitled to edit footage – unclear what the driver was looking at – Target legitimately commented that he demonstrated lapses in concentration and took his eyes off the road – programme broadcast fair reflection of Green Cabs’ response – not unfair – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – concerns better dealt with under fairness – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about ongoing Family Court proceedings concerning custody of a child – father interviewed anonymously and gave details of evidence and proceedings – brief visuals of baby – mother believed that as baby was identifiable, she was also identifiable – personal details broadcast about her – some allegedly inaccurate – child shown without mother’s permission – alleged breach of privacy of mother and baby – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – referral outside statutory time limit – s....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 105/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WENDY JOHNSTON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, host Mike Hosking offered his views on the incident of Prime Minister John Key's repeated pulling of a café waitress' ponytail. He described the waitress' motivations for speaking out as 'selfish' and 'a puffed up self-involved pile of political bollocks'. The Authority upheld complaints that this was unfair to the waitress. While public figures can expect criticism and robust scrutiny, in the Authority's view the waitress was not a public figure. The format of the 'final word' segment did not allow for a response from the waitress so she was unable to defend herself in this context. The Authority did not uphold the remainder of the complaints. Upheld: FairnessNot Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Discrimination and DenigrationNo OrderIntroduction[1] In April 2015 there was public disclosure of some conduct of the Prime Minister....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item used the word “gay” in the context of reporting on influx of homosexual couples from Australia getting married in New Zealand as civil unions are not legally recognised in Australia – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – “gay” is a commonly accepted and widely used term for homosexuals – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw – host interviewed professor about his creative writing course, writers and the writing community in general – professor made comments about New Zealand poets – allegedly in breach in of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – this episode of “Ideas” was not “factual programming” to which the standard applied – in any event professor’s comments amounted to his personal opinion and were therefore exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – programme was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – comments did not form part of a “factual programme” to which Standard 4 applied – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to individuals and organisations – does not apply to people who are deceased, or to a “generation of poets” – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on parole of a man who was jailed in relation to the so-called “Urewera anti-terror raids” – newsreader said men were “jailed over military-style training camps” – showed photograph of Tame Iti wearing a balaclava-type headpiece and holding a gun – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – while newsreader’s statement that the men were “jailed over military-style training camps” was technically inaccurate, the position was immediately clarified when the newsreader said they were sentenced for firearms offences – photograph of Tame Iti was relevant to the subject matter and would not have misled viewers – item not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – newsreader’s introductory comment and photograph of Tame Iti did not create unfair impression that the men were terrorists – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) –…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-005:Auckland District Law Society and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-005 PDF1. 07 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....