Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Spooks – promo broadcast on 3 February 2004 – used excerpt from an item about events in Northern Ireland from One News item broadcast on 15 October 2002 – promo did not refer to events since then – allegedly misleadingFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – item broadcast shortly before 6. 00pm news was promo for Spooks – used part of news item from One News broadcast on 15 October 2002 – balance not an issue – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the forthcoming drama series Spooks was broadcast on TV One shortly before the start of One News at 6. 00pm on 3 February 2004. The promo began with an excerpt from an item broadcast on One News on 15 October 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – coverage of the Makara cemetery desecration – graphic beside the news presenter showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol – inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Action taken – sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 6 August 2004 dealt with the desecration of Jewish graves in Wellington. [2] The graphic beside the news presenter during the introduction to this item showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol. [3] There was no suggestion during the news broadcast, other than the graphic, that the anarchist movement was involved in this incident....

ComplaintHolmes Leaders’ Debate – Christian Heritage Party not invited – unbalanced – partial – unfair FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – editorial discretion exercised in balanced and fair way – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaders of eight political parties participated in the Holmes Leaders’ Debate broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 15 July 2002. The participants were chosen on the basis that the parties were represented in the outgoing Parliament. The leaders were questioned about aspects of their party’s policies. [2] The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about its exclusion from the Leaders’ Debate and the following Minor Leaders’ Debate. It said that the broadcaster had acted unfairly in not treating all political parties in the same way....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on voluntary euthanasia in the context of New Zealand law – included interviews with two strong advocates of euthanasia – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – euthanasia is a controversial issue of public importance – item did not purport to discuss all arguments for and against euthanasia but was presented from the perspective of Sean Davison – euthanasia is a long-running moral issue with an ongoing period of current interest – alternative viewpoints adequately included, taking into account the focus of the item and the nature of issue – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 on 27 April 2012, reported on voluntary euthanasia....

Summary Allegations that Timberlands West Coast Ltd had lobbied the government to ensure that it could continue to harvest native forests were put to the company’s Chief Executive in an item on 20/20 titled "Unsustainable PR? " broadcast on 22 August 1999, beginning at 7. 30pm. Mr D L Hilliard, the Chief Executive of Timberlands, and Mr Stephen Sheaf each complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast lacked balance, was biased and unfair, and was intended to mislead viewers. Mr Hilliard, who was interviewed for the programme, also said that he had been misled as to its intention, and had consequently been treated unfairly. In its response, TV3 emphasised that the focus of the story had been Timberlands’ lobbying of the government, and noted that documents it had received indicated there was ample evidence of its having done so....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item mentioned Charlotte Dawson a number of times – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Decline to determine complaint under s. 11(a) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 on 8 November 2005 at 10pm contained a segment called “Save our Stars”, in which an actor went around the streets of Auckland collecting donations for various television presenters currently working for Prime Television. Correspondence [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the number of times Charlotte Dawson, a local celebrity, was mentioned in the programme. He argued that she had been referred to at least 11 times in the last 10 minutes of the episode, and submitted that Standards 4, 5 and 6 had been breached....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Election 2005 and Close Up – debates between Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and Labour and National parties’ finance spokespersons, prior to the 2005 General Election – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – complaint a matter of viewer preferences – no issue of broadcasting standards arose – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] TVNZ broadcast two political programmes on TV One prior to the 2005 general election. The first was Election 2005, a live studio debate featuring the Prime Minister Rt Hon Helen Clark and National Party leader Dr Don Brash, screened on 22 August 2005. [2] The second was Close Up, which involved a studio discussion without an audience between Labour’s finance spokesperson, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, and National’s finance spokesperson John Key, broadcast on 23 August 2005....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-072:One New Zealand Foundation Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-072 PDF477. 75 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Flipside – item reporting on Ahmed Zaoui, an Algerian refugee, having his birthday in a New Zealand prison – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – balance provided during period of current interest – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on Flipside on TV2 at 5pm on 7 December 2004 reported on Ahmed Zaoui, an Algerian refugee, who was having his birthday in a New Zealand prison. Flipside was a news and current interest programme delivered in a style that appealed to a youth audience. [2] The item comprised video showing Mr Zaoui’s supporters holding a “birthday party” outside the prison, comments from his supporters and a studio interview with his lawyer....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – episode showed three dogs being taken from their owner as they were not registered and were aggressive towards other dogs – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – focus was on dogs being removed from owner because they were not registered – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-123 Decision No: 1996-124 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DUPONT (NEW ZEALAND) LTD Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-123 Decision No: 1997-124 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by R J A MILLER of Invercargill and L SMITH of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes’ Breakfast Show – commentary on Ariel Sharon’s visit to Temple Mount – commentary on Middle East situation – unbalanced – inaccurate – socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 4 – editorial piece – other significant points of view presented in period of current interest – no uphold Principle 6 – clearly presenter’s opinion – comments not presented as fact – no uphold Principle 7 – not denigratory to extent envisaged by principle – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary In an item on Paul Holmes’ Breakfast Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 16 October 2000, the presenter commented on the Middle East situation. The presenter described Mr Ariel Sharon as a "dreadful beast" and as "mad, cynical [and] Arab-hating....

Summary A documentary about cigarette smoking in New Zealand called "Up in Smoke" was broadcast on Assignment on TV One, between 8. 30pm and 9. 30pm on 23 September 1999. The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand Limited ("Tobacco Institute") complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced in numerous ways. The Tobacco Institute also complained that the programme portrayed tobacco company executives and Maori women in a way which was likely to encourage discrimination against them. TVNZ responded that the programme was not unbalanced or unfair to the tobacco industry. In its view, the programme surveyed a broad range of relevant views about smoking, and included a tobacco industry perspective. TVNZ also disagreed that it had breached broadcasting standards relating to discrimination. TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussing possible organised crime involvement in the black market tobacco trade – interviewed tobacco growers – one interviewee stated that he was no longer growing tobacco, but aerial footage of his property showed that he was – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item inaccurate, but not significant in the context of the item overall – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the complainant or to another interviewee – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....