Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 16/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HOPE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 112/95 Decision No: 113/95 Dated the 26th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by HUMANITY PUBLISHING SOCIETY LIMITED of Auckland and CATHOLIC COMMUNICATIONS of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-079 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JENNY HALE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 2/94 Dated the 19th day of January 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NATIONWIDE GUARANTEE CORPORATION LIMITED of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

ComplaintMorning Report – panel discussion about Biketawa Declaration – presenter biased – panellist treated unfairly FindingsPrinciple 4 – reasonable efforts made to present significant points of view – no uphold Principle 5 – discussion could have been better handled – not, however, a breach of fairness requirement – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 31 October 2000 between 7. 20am and 7. 30am, included a panel discussion about the effects of the recently announced Biketawa Declaration, in which Pacific Islands Forum leaders agreed to change a 30-year tradition of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states, to allow the Forum to deal with regional crises....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and One News Tonight – reported on teachers’ industrial action – stated that the teachers’ union had rejected the Government’s offer of a 2 percent pay increase, and that teachers were fighting for a 4 percent increase on their base salaries – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints and spoke to representatives of the teachers – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant has not provided evidence that the figures were inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individuals or organisations he believed had been treated unfairly – no unfairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-046 Dated the 21st day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by POWER FOR OUR FUTURE Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)3 News – item about the release of the United Nations’ fourth report on climate change immediately preceded item about glacial decline in New Zealand – introduction to second item began “the UN report seems to back up what’s happening here” – images of ice melting and falling into water – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 (balance) – was a factual report rather than a discussion – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] UN Report on climate change During 3 News on 18 November 2007, an item was broadcast at approximately 6. 15pm about the release of the fourth report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which, according to the presenter, asserted that “there is no doubt global warming is man-made”....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-139:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-139 PDF295. 26 KB...

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – lead story on speculation that recently announced tax cuts in the Australian Federal budget could attract an increased number of migrants from New Zealand – allegedly unbalanced in that it omitted to mention New Zealand’s low tax rate by OECD standardsFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – controversial issue was whether the cut in tax rates would lead to increased migration – significant points of view presented about that issue – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The possible attraction to New Zealanders of the recently announced tax cuts in the Australian Federal budget was discussed on Morning Report on 11 May 2006, immediately following the 7. 00am news. The item referred to spokespeople from recruitment agencies who said migration to Australia could increase unless there were tax reductions in the forthcoming New Zealand budget....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion of recent campaign issues which had arisen in regard to forthcoming general election – commentators were a former president of the National Party, a former president of the Labour Party and a political science lecturer – allegedly partisan and unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – most of complaint based on personal preferences – role of minor parties raised issue of broadcasting standards – range of views advanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Agenda broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 10 September 2005 included a panel discussion about campaign issues relating to the general election then due on 17 September. Specific aspects were covered in different segments of the programme....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast of the personal views of certain celebrities who supported changing the flag resulted in an unbalanced and partial programme. While the item featured several celebrities in support of the alternative flag, it also mentioned some who supported the current flag. In the context of the item this was a sufficient acknowledgement of significant viewpoints on the issue. Furthermore, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the different perspectives on the flag referendum issue. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-015:Perry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-015 PDF1008. 74 KB...

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six taxi companies in Auckland – noted that driver of Green Cab had looked down at something six times during the journey – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster was entitled to edit footage – unclear what the driver was looking at – Target legitimately commented that he demonstrated lapses in concentration and took his eyes off the road – programme broadcast fair reflection of Green Cabs’ response – not unfair – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – concerns better dealt with under fairness – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live – (1) talkback host on 11 October criticised New Zealand Aids Foundation for what he regarded as its promotion of the gay lifestyle – allegedly denigratory, unbalanced and unfair(2) talkback host on 12 October expressed dislike for most gay men – allegedly denigratory, unbalanced and unfairFindings (both 11 and 12 October broadcasts) Principle 4 (balance) – exchanges did not amount to discussions about a controversial of public importance – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – no obligation to give the NZAF a right of reply taking into account brevity of throw-away comments made by talkback host – not upheldPrinciple 7 and guideline 7a (denigration) – threshold not met – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...