Search Rapua

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "To Age or Not to Age" – misleading – adverse health outcomes possible – unbalanced – broadcaster (TVNZ) upheld balance complaint – not impartial – broadcaster investigating commissioning possible documentary on dieting and ageing in 2002 – action taken insufficient FindingsImportant information contained in programme – action taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of approved statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "To Age or Not to Age" was the title of the documentary broadcast by TV One at 8. 30pm on 30 July 2001 in the weekly documentary time slot. Using a number of medical criteria, the programme set out to measure the effectiveness of the approaches promoted by Leslie Kenton for staying healthy and feeling younger....

ComplaintRadio Pacific – only part of letter from complainant to talkback host read on air – devious and unfair FindingsPrinciple 4 and guideline a – complainant’s views advanced – no uphold Principle 5 and guideline b – editing did not involve distortion – no uphold Principle 6 and guideline a – no deceptive practice used – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During a discussion of the terrorist attack in New York City on 11 September 2001, a host of the talkback station, Radio Pacific, was said to have stated on a number of occasions that Osama bin Laden had nuclear weapons and that New Zealand was a likely target. Mark Madigan wrote to the host disputing this claim. He provided sources for his view that, even if bin Laden had nuclear weapons, he would not be able to use them....

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: 33/94 Dated the 2nd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – subtitled version – item on 90th birthday of Northland kaumatua – celebrations held in RSA – subtitles allegedly said that celebrations could not be held on marae because construction of local marae unable to proceed due to objections of local Pakeha – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindingsSubtitled version of programme not retained by TVNZ – Authority had no evidence to establish what was said in subtitles – unable to determine despite procedural unfairness to complainant – declined to determine complaint pursuant to section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 ObservationComplaint originally only about subtitled version – Māori-language version referred to “Pakeha rednecks” – “rednecks” concern only brought to complainant’s attention in TVNZ’s response to her original complaint – Authority has no jurisdiction to determine concerns about Maori-language version as issue not raised in original complaintThis headnote does not form part…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that an episode of Jeremy Kyle, a talk show dealing with relationship breakdowns between guests, breached broadcasting standards. The complainant’s objections related to the nature of the series in general, rather than specific content in this episode. While elements could have caused discomfort or distress for viewers, the episode was consistent with audience expectations of the talk show genre, was rated PGR and was broadcast at a time when AO programmes are permitted, during the school term, so children were unlikely to be watching....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 7/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER ZOHRAB of Wainuiomata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

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 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…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on shoplifting – included footage of “security expert” shoplifting from two stores – allegedly in breach of law and order and balance Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item 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 Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Monday 9 June 2008, featured a story on shoplifting and the effects it was having both on the business community and New Zealand consumers. [2] The presenter introduced the item by saying: Tonight. . . we look at others caught on camera, caught shoplifting. In fact. . ....

Summary Good Morning referred to the Alliance Party’s proposal to introduce higher taxes. The presenter asked "Should the rich be taxed more? ", and invited viewers to telephone or fax their responses for inclusion in the programme’s Voteline. Responses were provided to viewers in a graph format, and through the presenter’s comments during the course of the programme, which was broadcast on TV One on 29 September 1999, from 10. 00–12. 00 noon. Mr Wakeman complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the programme’s focus on tax rates was not balanced. He had attempted to participate in the poll, he said, and the broadcaster had advised it would contact him for his view but had failed to do so. He questioned the number of responses received, and also the presenter’s comment at one particular time that the poll was showing a lack of support for tax increases....

ComplaintMorning Report – British newspaper reviews – left wing bias – unbalancedFindingsNo issues of broadcasting standards raised – decline to determine under s. 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During Morning Report broadcast daily on weekdays between 6. 00–9. 00am on National Radio, some selected overseas newspapers are reviewed. During the period 4 to 28 July 2000, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph and The Times were reviewed. Mr G C C Meikle complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that its coverage of the British dailies lacked balance. He noted that considerably more reference had been given to The Guardian than to either The Daily Telegraph or The Times. In his view there was no justification for the bias he believed was demonstrated in favour of The Guardian....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Darpan – report on first Hindu conference in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, programme information and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – report was not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard relates to an individual – no individual specified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in the item – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Council spokesperson explained what the conference was about – viewers were made aware that the conference had a number of themes – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – report was a fair and accurate reflection of the event – not upheld Standard 7 (programme…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News item about two young New Zealanders who won prizes in an essay competition on issues of public concern – one essay about the impact of mussel farming on the marine environment – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – essay competition was the item’s focus, not mussel industry – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – opinions not facts about mussel industry advanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Two young New Zealand conservationists who had won prices in an essay competition were interviewed in One News broadcast on TV One beginning at 6. 00pm on 18 July 2004. One had written an essay on the impact of mussel farming on the marine environment, focusing on the Marlborough Sounds....

Summary An item on Holmes featured the Alpha Club which, it reported, represented itself as a travel club. The item suggested the club was involved in pyramid selling activities, and included amateur footage of a club meeting, a woman encouraging another person to join the club, and interviews with people who had attended meetings. An Auckland barrister expressed an opinion that he was in "no doubt" that the activities amounted to pyramid selling. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 May 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. Mr Price complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was inaccurate, unbalanced, biased and misleading, and that he had suffered financial loss as a result. TVNZ responded that the barrister interviewed was a recognised expert in the field of consumer law....

SummaryKim Hill, as spokesperson for Radio New Zealand staff, was interviewed on the Tonight programme on TV One on 16 June 1999 at 10. 10pm. The discussion focused on a paper prepared by a member of the RNZ Board which proposed that its News and Current Affairs services could be contracted out. Mr Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast both of the item, and the trailers which promoted it, breached broadcasting standards. In particular, he objected to Ms Hill, as a public sector employee, questioning the appointment of the Board member who had made the proposal. Mr Boyce also expressed concern that she had been interviewed at her home when the matters she was discussing were related to her work. In its response, TVNZ advised that it was satisfied that Ms Hill’s comments were appropriately balanced by responses from the Board’s Chairman....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported reaction of recreational groups and farmers to recommendations made by the government’s Walking Access Consultation Panel – allegedly inaccurate and unbalanced Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 7 March 2007, discussed the release of the recommendations made by the government’s Walking Access Consultation Panel....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....