Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-105 Dated the 10th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND MINERALS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-130 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HON MURRAY McCULLY Minister of Housing Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item introduced as “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” – about an undertaker whose practices were said to have offended some families – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – allegedly breached privacy of named undertakerFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (iii) – no intrusion in the nature of prying – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed not featured in complaint – complaint subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – partiality dealt with under fairness – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opportunities given to respond – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7. 00pm on 7 June 2005....

ComplaintOne News – item reported the issue of a safety advisory notice for an oil heater sold through the Warehouse – following item reported death of two girls in fire thought to have been caused by gas heater – complaint that items unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – each item balanced – not upheld Standard 5 – each item accurate – not upheld Standard 6 – juxtaposition of items created misleading impression – unfair – upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The issue of a safety advisory notice about the Brio Five Fin oil heater, sold through The Warehouse stores, was reported in an item broadcast on One News on 30 August 2003 beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – item about violence encountered by staff working with dementia patients – contained interviews with a nurse working in a dementia ward, a representative from the Nurses Organisation and a spokesperson from the Ministry of Health – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – broadcaster presented the required significant viewpoints – perspective of care providers not vital to discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment complained about was not a statement of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people and organisations taking part and referred to treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

ComplaintCheckpoint – Waitara shooting – police officer not named – unbalanced interview with his lawyer – interviewer partial FindingsPrinciple 4 – a number of viewpoints heard – not partial – balance achieved over time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The lawyer for the police officer who shot and killed a man in Waitara was one of those interviewed in an item on the shooting broadcast on Checkpoint on National Radio on 16 August 2000 between 5. 00–6. 00pm. She explained some of the background to the shooting and defended the request that the officer not be named by the media. Simon Boyce complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and that it was "extraordinary" that the lawyer was interviewed and given an opportunity to defend the police officer....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – examined differences in breast cancer treatment in Australia and New Zealand, and the funding of a drug called Herceptin – interviewed an Australian and a New Zealander with similar cancer and compared their prognoses – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster failed to present significant viewpoints on the controversial issue within the programme, and within the period of current interest – due to the presentation of the programme and the nature of the issue, the period of current interest limited to a short time after the broadcast – alternative perspectives were not presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements would have misled viewers – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Renters – item showing dispute between tenant and rental agent – allegedly in breach of privacy, also unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair – not upheld. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Renters on TV2 at 8pm on 17 February 2005 showed an altercation between a tenant and a rental agent. The tenant argued with the agent about a sign in the downstairs window which had led to prospective tenants pestering him in the upstairs flat....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

ComplaintInsight – item on the monarchy versus republic debate – unbalanced – unfair presentation – factual inaccuracies FindingsPrinciple 4 – range of views presented – no uphold Principle 5 – Dr Mann of the Monarchist League not dealt with unfairly – no uphold Principle 6 – no inaccuracies – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Insight programme dealing with support for a monarchy and republicanism was broadcast on National Radio on Sunday 17 February 2002 between 8. 15–8. 45am. The Queen’s impending visit to New Zealand was the catalyst for the discussion. [2] On behalf of The Monarchist League of New Zealand Inc. , Dr Noel Cox, Chairman, complained to Radio New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced, factually incorrect and unfairly presented....

Complaint Holmes – series of items on the "brain drain" – Richard Poole – newspaper advertisement – Business Roundtable backing – unbalanced – news source lacked integrity FindingsStandard G6 – items lacked balance – broadcaster not impartial – Poole’s integrity not forcefully challenged – uphold Standard G15 – Poole an "information source" as required by standard – broadcaster failed to ascertain adequately his integrity/reliability – uphold OrdersBroadcast of statement$2,000 costs to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items broadcast on the Holmes show on TV One on 4, 5 and 6 October 2000 dealt with a perceived "brain drain" whereby young, educated New Zealanders were allegedly leaving New Zealand permanently for better jobs and an enhanced lifestyle overseas. Holmes is broadcast between 7. 00pm and 7. 30pm on weekdays....

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-015:New Zealand Police and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-015 PDF2. 1 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-016:Hon Richard Prebble MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-016 PDF2. 82 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Coast FM News reported that Zero Commission ‘has been making low ball offers’ to shareholders of various companies. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that Zero Commission and its shareholders were treated unfairly as no opportunity was given to respond to the claims or the negative impression created. The minority did not consider the item was unfair as Zero Commission could reasonably expect some commentary from time to time that it would not like or agree with. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the use of the term ‘low ball’ was inaccurate as this was a subjective term, not a point of fact. The controversial issues standard was not applicable because the item focused squarely on one company, not a controversial issue of public importance....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Sunday Morning contained two items on the historical relationship between Israel and apartheid South Africa: Counterpoint contained a discussion of the relationship between Israel and South Africa and of Israel's arms industry; and an interview with an anti-apartheid activist discussed this topic as well as modern-day Israel's treatment of Palestinians. The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast breached the controversial issues standard, as no alternative perspective was presented either within the broadcast, in any proximate broadcast or in other media. The Authority declined to uphold the remainder of the complaints because: the statements complained of were either expressions of opinion or matters the Authority cannot determine and therefore were not subject to the accuracy standard; the statements did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the programme did not treat any individual or organisation unfairly....