Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 147/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M JAMES of Raglan Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-111 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEVE BISHOP of Albany TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

ComplaintSpace – interview with two female porn actors – promoted their profession and business interests – no information about full activities of interviewees – unbalanced – abusive and objectionable language in complainant’s final comment FindingsStandard G6 – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Two visiting female porn actors were interviewed on Space, broadcast on TV2 between 10. 25pm and midnight on 9 November 2001. The questions focused mainly on how they became involved in the industry, and one of the interviewees asked viewers interested in entering the industry to contact them. [2] Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the interview was unbalanced as no one spoke about the degrading aspects of the industry....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Radio Tarana reported on the Sanil Kumar Medical Fund, which had been set up for the treatment of a young Fijian-Indian man in New Zealand who had subsequently been deported to Fiji and died. There were allegations by the immediate family of Mr Kumar and others that the fund was being misused by its directors. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the broadcasts were unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, denigrating and caused panic among the public. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide balance and fairness, no inaccuracies could be identified, the discrimination and denigration standard was not applicable and the broadcasts were not presented irresponsibly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that Radio New Zealand's Sunday Morning coverage of 'Dirty Politics issues', was unbalanced, irresponsible and unfair. The broadcast covered a range of topics including Dirty Politics, and as the book was one of the political 'hot topics' in the lead-up to the 2014 general election and widely reported on, listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of other views. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Stephen Lace complained that Radio New Zealand's Sunday Morning programme on 24 August 2014, and specifically the coverage of 'Dirty Politics issues', was unbalanced, irresponsible and unfair. He referred to a 'left wing bias' and a lack of serious analysis and discussion of proposed policy....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-088:Matthews and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-088 PDF349. 69 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-093:Pryor and Corrigan and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-093 PDF588. 82 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 138/95 Dated the 30th day of November 1995 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 Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-106 Decision No: 1996-107 Decision No: 1996-108 Decision No: 1996-109 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ROYAL AUSTRALASIAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS (2) and HEALTHCARE OTAGO (2) Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Summary Station identification promos broadcast on TV One included the slogan "Together We’re One", and the logo "Celebrating New Zealand". Mr Seymour complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, that the promos encouraged the denigration of Maori and, in particular, discrimination against the legitimate expression of Maori cultural and political beliefs. They promoted, he wrote, an ideology that was inherently assimilationist. TVNZ responded that the reference to "One" was to TV One. The promos implicitly reflected a "one-ness" between TV One and its viewers, and placed that theme in a determinedly bi-cultural context which recognised cultural diversity, it replied. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Seymour referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust regarding a 21- month prison sentence given to a man found guilty of illegally selling his large gun collection on the black market – discussion about whether sentences in New Zealand were long enough – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – viewers only provided with one significant viewpoint – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7. 10am on Thursday 18 December 2008, included an interview with Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust. The interview focused on the previous day’s sentencing of a man to 21 months imprisonment for illegally selling his large gun collection on the black market....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – news item on puppies being euthanized by Invercargill City Council – included interview with the mayor of Invercargill – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns did not relate to a material point of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Breakfast’s news segment, broadcast on TV One at 8. 05am on Thursday 20 August 2009, reported on puppies being destroyed by Invercargill City Council. The presenter stated: Invercargill’s Mayor is standing by his Council amid accusations that it’s unnecessarily killing puppies....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported on tensions between the Horowhenua Rowing Club and certain local Māori residents over the future of the club’s use of the building next to Lake Horowhenua. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The item carefully conveyed a complex issue, was not factually inaccurate and would not have misled viewers in any material respect. While the conflict surrounding the rowing club’s presence at Lake Horowhenua is a controversial issue of public importance, the item included the viewpoints of both parties and was sufficiently balanced. The item did not treat the nominated individuals unfairly, as they were not criticised and had a reasonable opportunity to give their views....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday exposed the alleged mistreatment of bobby calves by some members of New Zealand’s dairy industry. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the complainant and breached his and his employee’s privacy, and that the item was inaccurate and lacked balance. Neither RZ nor his employee was identifiable during the footage and they were not participants, or referred to, in the item. The item was also sufficiently balanced, as the perspective of the dairy industry was given both within the item and within the period of current interest. Comments in the item that the complainant alleged were inaccurate were clearly opinion and analysis and thus not subject to the accuracy standard, and the item was not otherwise misleading....