Search Rapua

ComplaintCheckpoint – Prostitution Reform Bill – interview with Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP who abstained from voting – reference to Muslim background and comments from representatives of Muslim communities who had expected him to vote against the Bill – blamed for passage of Bill – held up to ridicule and contempt – unfair FindingsPrinciple 4 – MP given right to reply to criticism – no uphold Principle 5 – MP not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Prostitution Reform Bill was passed in Parliament by one vote on 25 June 2003. In an item broadcast on Checkpoint on National Radio at 5. 00pm on Thursday 26 June, comment was made that the Bill would not have passed had Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP not abstained....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Caller to talkback on 6 November 2005 used word “Muslim” – disconnected – allegedly unbalancedNews broadcast on 7 November – four matters allegedly inaccurateNews broadcast on 20 November referred to Rugby World Cup – broadcaster acknowledged that it had been inaccurate to say that South Africa had withdrawn its bid – apology to complainant and correction broadcast a week later – action taken insufficientFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – did not give rise to issue of balance in talkback radio environment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – unable to determine three complaints – decline to determineNo inaccuracy in respect of fourth complaint – not upheldAction taken – action taken sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts and Complaints [1] Rakesh Chand complained to Apna Networks Ltd, the broadcaster, about three different broadcasts on Apna 990AM....

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – item reported on the Australian Government's proposal to legislate for the mandatory blocking of particular websites – contained comment from a representative of the internet civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance to New Zealand – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee qualified his statements – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast during Radio New Zealand National's Morning Report programme on Tuesday 28 October 2008 reported on the Australian Government’s plan to legislate for the blocking of websites it deemed to be illegal or inappropriate....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported allegations that during his time as a teacher, Cabinet Minister David Benson-Pope was “sleazy” and made female students stand outside in their nighties as punishment at a school camp – included comments from Mr Benson-Pope – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue of public importance whether Mr Benson-Pope had acted inappropriately towards female students during his time as a teacher – significant perspectives were aired during period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies or misleading impressions – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – door-stepping interview not unfair – reporter entitled to approach Cabinet Minister – overall Mr Benson-Pope treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion about taxi safety – referred to taxi drivers as “cabbies” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “cabbies” not pejorative – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster not required to present views of non-Taxi Federation companies – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – did not imply that non-Taxi Federation members were at the “bottom end” of the industry – not unfair – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – programme was ambiguous as to whether Taxi Federation represented all companies – not inaccurate – not upheld 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 the appointment of Vienna Richards as Niu FM’s news editor – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – focus of the item was the appointment and the perception it had created – Ms Moore’s comments were sufficient to answer the reporter’s questions – reporter did not need to interview Ms Richards or detail her experience in journalism – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not misled viewers by omitting information – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989State of the Nation – televised debate on race relations included expert panel and studio audience – allegedly unbalanced and partial FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – reasonable efforts made to canvass a range of views from both sides in context – impartial – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] State of the Nation was broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 10 June 2004. The two-hour programme was a live panel and studio audience discussion, in which the participants discussed race issues between Māori and Pakeha in New Zealand society. The programme was hosted by Anita McNaught, and co-hosted by Robert Rakete and Kerre Woodham. Complaints [2] Colin Cross complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced and partial....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reference to President George W Bush “leading the free world” – allegedly unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – no balancing comment required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any persons taking part or referred to – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 22 October 2004 dealt with a back-dated pay rise which had been given to Members of Parliament in New Zealand. Towards the end of the segment, the reporter compared the salary of the Prime Minister of New Zealand with that of other world leaders, including President George W. Bush of the United States....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Is Your House Killing You? – featured family in Queensland – father had used a substantial amount of timber treated with Copper Chrome Arsenate (CCA) for landscaping and decking – programme stated that exposure to the chemicals in CCA-treated timber could cause serious health effects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts by relying on scientific experts – mostly expert opinion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Is Your House Killing You? was broadcast on TV One at 8pm on Friday 11 December 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – item featured a woman who ran a sanctuary for ex-battery hens – included footage of caged hens – woman described condition of hens when they arrived at her property – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item focused on the experience of one woman – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about uric acid presented as fact – inaccurate but immaterial in context of human interest story – point was that chickens were in poor condition as a result of being caged – not misleading to use footage of battery hens – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – industry not an individual or organisation taking part or referred to – complainant did not take part and was not referred to – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – priest accidentally removed “Pope’s” head and sewed it back on – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An animated comedy series called Popetown centred around Father Nicholas, an idealistic young priest who lives in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown) with a group of corrupt cardinals and a pogo-stick riding infantile Pope....

Complaint3 News – armed gunmen in Fiji – new uprising or old army exercise? – developing news or old footage? – inaccurate and misleading – caused tourists to cancel trips to Fiji FindingsStandard G1 – inaccurate description of event as "latest incident" – uphold Standards G2, G6, G11, G14, G15, G16, G21 – overall, items not unbalanced or misleading or causing unnecessary panic alarm or distress – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage of Fijian men firing automatic rifles inside an Indian school complex in Labasa on the Fiji island of Vanua Levu, was the subject of two separate news items broadcast on 3 News at 6pm. The first news item, broadcast on 29 November 2000, referred to the footage as "the latest incident" in a terror campaign against Indian villagers....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on John Key’s visit to Greymouth – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – complainant mistaken about contents of item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 24 October 2008, was introduced as follows: [Labour is] poised to get back in Government, the head of a coalition of parties, and that’s a vision [leader of the National Party, John Key] describes as "a five-headed monster of the left", and one he hopes voters will flee from. Well, political editor Duncan Garner has travelled with Key to the West Coast today. . . [2] Mr Garner reported that "John Key's comments today do come as a direct result of that poll last night. . . "....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on Paris Hilton going to jail – presenter made comments about Ms Hilton and threw a box of tissues over her shoulder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, fairness, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter acted in a light-heated and off-the-cuff manner – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter expressed her own opinion in a light-hearted way – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item would not have disturbed child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Hon Tariana Turia called a “confused bag of lard” by host – also accused of being a bully and “all mouth” – allegedly offensive, encouraged denigration, unbalanced and partialFindings Principle 1 and Guideline 1a (good taste and decency) – comments not indecent – questionable taste – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – not applicable to editorial comment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – editorial comment not required to be impartial – not upheld Principle 7 and Guideline 7a (discrimination) – comments focused on individual, not group – not upheldObservation Broadcast comments raised issue of fairness, and broadcaster acknowledged probable unfairness. However, neither complainant raised the fairness standard either explicitly or implicitly in original complaints. Authority unable to assess a complaint on standard not raised in original complaints....