Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-071:Dunlop and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-071 PDF264. 43 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-095:Edmunds and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-095 PDF846. 89 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-022:Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-022 PDF421. 83 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-030:MacRaild (on behalf of CORSO Inc) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-030 PDF767. 92 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Roger Morris complained that an alleged discussion on Worldwatch about the 'Ukraine coup d'etat' failed to mention a number of key facts, primarily about the United States' involvement in the conflict. The Authority declined to determine the complaint as the broadcast identified by the complainant in his complaint did not feature any content about Ukraine. Declined to Determine: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Roger Morris complained that an alleged discussion on Worldwatch about the 'Ukraine coup d'etat' failed to mention a number of key facts, primarily about the United States' involvement in the conflict. He considered that the omission of these facts was in breach of the controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for Paul Henry, broadcast during 3 News, featured a photo of an alleged terrorist and host Paul Henry joking about the type of dialogue that would occur between members of a terrorist group. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that this promo was highly offensive ‘so soon after the Paris terrorist attacks’ and breached the controversial issues standard. The promo did not explicitly mention the Paris terrorist attacks, was apparently intended to be humorous (as the hosts were all shown laughing) and was consistent with expectations of the host programme. The promo also did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue which triggered the requirement to provide balance. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A promo for Paul Henry, broadcast during 3 News, showed a photo of an apparent terrorist....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 92/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AGNES-MARY J BROOKE of Nelson Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-013 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-003 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID AITCHISON of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Items on One Network News and Tonight on 19 June 1998 reported that the Act Members of Parliament had been requested by TVNZ to provide particulars of their assets and business interests. None, the reports said, had been willing to do so. The reasons for the refusal by two Act MPs were highlighted in the items. Mr McKay complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that it was being politically selective in failing to declare that similar information had been sought from members of other political parties. TVNZ, he continued, compounded its offence by publishing replies to its request from several Act MPs. TVNZ responded that Act was the one political party standing out against disclosure of MPs’ assets....

Complaint3 News – comment by sports presenter about player "milking" injury – incident during rugby matchFindings(1) Standard G14 – interpretation acceptable – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During a sports item on 3 News about a head-high tackle which had occurred during a rugby match, the sports presenter commented that the tackled player’s team-mates were "quick to ensure he milked it for all it was worth". The item was broadcast on TV3 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm on 12 March 2000. Mathew Zacharias complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached numerous broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

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 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback – complainant expressed opposition to proposal for crematorium in Waikanae – host frequently interrupted with questions and criticisms – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, unfair, and denigrated the elderly Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – not applicable – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – range of views advanced – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – not unfair in robust talkback environment – not upheld Principle 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The proposal to build a crematorium in central Waikanae was an issue on the talkback session hosted by Justin du Fresne on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 4 December 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tonight – item on Turkey’s potential entry into the European Union – interview with London correspondent – comments allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – matters complained about were not the controversial issue of public importance under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – item did not denigrate Turkish people – no other grounds of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tonight broadcast a three-part item on 4 October 2005 at 10. 30pm covering the possible entry of Turkey into the European Union (EU). The first part of the item was an introductory piece by the Tonight presenter which briefly outlined the outcome of a meeting in Luxembourg....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented with reference to ACT MP David Garrett, “He is a complete waster....

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…...