Search Rapua

ComplaintOmission to broadcast news about an Invercargill businessman – unbalanced – deceptive programming practice FindingsComplaint about omission to broadcast – editorial judgement – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Brent Procter complained that local news bulletins on Foveaux Radio had failed to cover the activities of Matthew Gould, an Invercargill businessman who had been charged with fraud. He contended that in this omission the broadcaster had failed to show balance and had used deceptive programming practice in its broadcasts, notably during the period of newsworthiness, between 6 March and 10 March 2000. The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Foveaux Radio, responded that it had taken note of Mr Procter’s thoughts and comments on the matter and would keep them in mind for future consultation with news providers....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-021:New Zealand Fishing Industry Association and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-021 PDF916. 23 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-082:Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-082 PDF1. 41 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-004:Credo Society Inc and Campus Radio BFM Ltd - 1992-004389. 62 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Nation – discussed the Labour Party’s proposal to increase the number of female caucus members – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – Labour Party’s proposal was a controversial issue of public importance – two of four panellists who discussed the issue expressed views in support of the proposal – gender of panellists not relevant and spectrum of views meant sufficient balance provided – broadcaster made reasonable efforts and gave reasonable opportunities to provide balance on the issue in the programme – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellists did not comment on women in general – programme did not encourage discrimination or denigration against women as a section of the community – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-057:Walshe (Hon Consul General of Ireland) and Access Community Radio Inc - 1993-057 PDF697. 24 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-165:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-165 PDF416. 3 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-016:Cooper and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-016 PDF454. 76 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – broadcast of anonymous interviewee’s allegations that the Hon David Benson-Pope was guilty of bullying students at Bayfield High School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – broadcasting allegations by anonymous interviewee unfair – RNZ did not verify interviewee’s credibility to a high standard before granting anonymity – did not undertake sufficient independent investigations into interviewee’s story – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue whether Mr Benson-Pope bullied students during his time as a teacher – RNZ made reasonable efforts to present significant perspectives within period of current interest – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one aspect subsumed under Principle 5 – decline to determine whether allegations were accurate – describing a caning as a “beating” not inaccurate – not upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $5,000…...

SummaryThe New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd was the subject of items on Holmes broadcast at 7. 00pm on 15 and 16 December 1998. The item on the 15th suggested that some students had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the school’s programme. It also included an interview with Ms Marilyn Hudson, the School’s Managing Director. The item on the 16th included comments from other dissatisfied past and present students and their families, and an interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about both items. She said that the first item contained inaccuracies, and was unbalanced, misleading and unfair both to her and the School. The second item, Ms Hudson complained, also contained some inaccuracies, and again was unbalanced, misleading and unfair....

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – story about a man convicted of defrauding ACC who later successfully appealed to the Supreme Court – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item focused on one man and his successful appeal to the Supreme Court – touched on criticisms of ACC’s conduct which could be controversial and of public importance – broadcast statement from ACC addressing criticisms – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item omitted information that may have been useful – but did not contain any inaccuracies which amounted to a breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 12 June 2009, featured a man who had been convicted of defrauding ACC, and later won an appeal to the Supreme Court....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – item on a man named Paul Cleave and his attempts to get his camera repaired – item explained that Mr Cleave had received a loan camera from the retailer – Mr Cleave was shown stating that he was not going to return the loan camera – the presenter made a number of comments about him taking the loan camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, balance and fairness standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – the Authority received conflicting evidence on two statements complained about and declined to determine them – the other three statements complained about were accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a fair representation of Mr Cleave’s conduct – item’s change in focus was prompted by Mr Cleave’s own behaviour – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Mr Cleave signed a consent form allowing…...

ComplaintOutspoken – foreshore and seabed issue – complaint that the panel of four represented radical Maori viewpoint and item partial and unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4 – introduction set framework – those matters canvassed during broadcast – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The foreshore and seabed issue was addressed by a panel of four speakers during Outspoken, broadcast on National Radio between 8. 00 and 9. 00 pm on 11 November 2003. [2] Gregory Wicksteed complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was neither impartial nor balanced. The four panellists and the two presenters, he wrote, represented only the Maori radical movement. No allowance, he added, was made for the alternative viewpoint held by the majority of New Zealanders. [3] In response, RNZ said that the standards provided for balance being achieved over time....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling against advertisement for Charlie’s Soda – studio discussion among four men about whether the decision was out of step with society and demonstrated a double standard between advertising and television programmes – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – discussion was confined to one advertisement – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 31 January 2008, discussed the decision of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that an advertisement for Charlie’s Soda was in breach of advertising standards. According to the item, the ASA ruled that the advertisement breached a standard which required advertisements not to use sexual content to promote an unrelated product....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the Commerce Commission's prosecution of a man and his company Probitas, who were marketing a fertiliser system – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme failed to provide viewers with a significant perspective which was critical to their understanding of the issues – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate statements of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – promo – not unfair to expert witness – promo was a fair reflection of interview with the Commission's representative – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme – did not fairly present the Commission's side of the story – unfair to the Commission – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2182....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – interview with representative of End Child Prostitution and Trafficking (ECPAT) about the release of a US report on human trafficking – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item offered one individual’s opinion on the report and trafficking and prostitution generally – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee made comments from ECPAT’s perspective – clearly distinguishable as comment and opinion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Sunrise, broadcast on TV3 from 7am to 9am on 6 June 2008, one of the programme’s hosts announced that the US State Department had released its annual report on human trafficking, which “contains some strong words on New Zealand’s legalised prostitution system”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – segments concerning police shooting of innocent bystander – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme discussed a controversial issue of public importance – views of the police were put forward by interviewees and viewer feedback – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 6. 50am during Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Monday 26 January 2009, one of the hosts interviewed the New Zealand Police Association President, Greg O’Connor, following a fatal shooting by the Armed Offenders Squad of an innocent man the previous Friday. The host asked Mr O’Connor whether it was reasonable at this time to question the actions of the police officers involved. Mr O’Connor responded: . . . it’s an absolute tragedy and we have got nothing but sympathy for that family. . . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with complainant about a possible ban on pseudoephedrine – followed by interview with a GP – interviewer told GP that complainant had suggested that over-the-counter pharmaceuticals containing pseudoephedrine were not the main source of supply for makers of “P” – similar statement made in News item broadcast after the interview – interviewer’s comment and News item allegedly misrepresented Minister’s comments – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Principle 4 (balance) – different views expressed – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – Minister’s comment accepted as implication initially – later broadcast as fact – inaccurate – upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....