Search Rapua

ComplaintLate Edition – item on plethora of cancer scares – insufficient attention given to the need to avoid the avoidable – unbalanced FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – focus on cancer scares – balancing comment – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The seemingly endless number of cancer scares, and the wide range of products and behaviours linked to cancer, were considered in a relatively brief news item broadcast on Late Edition on TV One at 10. 35pm on 14 August 2001. [2] R F James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced as it gave no recognition to the basic medical precept that if a risk is avoidable, it should be avoided. When TVNZ did not respond to the complaint, Mr James referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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

ComplaintTaste New Zealand – profiles of some food entrepreneurs included one on Ron Hubbard – did not refer to his membership of the Food and Nutritional Advisory Committee and that Committee’s attitude to soy – unbalanced FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – Standard 4 – item did not deal with controversial issue – standard not relevant – no uphold – advise that future marginal complaints may be considered vexatious and trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Taste New Zealand is an entertainment series about the food industry. The episode broadcast at 8. 00pm on TV One on 25 September 2002 presented some profiles about a number of successful food entrepreneurs. Ron Hubbard of Hubbard Foods Ltd was one of the entrepreneurs featured. [2] Richard James complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced....

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 Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – story about “moon man” Ken Ring and his claims he predicted Christchurch earthquakes – John Campbell interviewed Mr Ring – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ring was treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – Mr Ring’s predictions were a controversial issue of public importance – his views were presented within the period of current interest in other media coverage – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainants did not specify which aspects of the programme they considered to be inaccurate, or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 – Australian Governor-General – alleged cover-up of sexual abuse – Merepeka Raukawa-Tait interviewed – suggested Australians were hypocritical as their silence may have contributed to abuse – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 and Guideline 4a – item balanced about matter of Governor-General’s tenure – no uphold Standard 5 – item accurate – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no evidence of denigration – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Controversy over the allegations that the Australian Governor-General, Dr Peter Hollingworth, had covered up sex abuse cases when Archbishop of Brisbane was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 22 February 2002. The Chief Executive of Women’s Refuge in New Zealand, Merepeka Raukawa-Tait, when interviewed, suggested that the criticism directed at Dr Hollingworth was hypocritical....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 National Radio – Nine to Noon – joint interview with organiser of anti-racism march in Christchurch and leader of National Front – complainant alleged that interview on National Radio gave National Front credibility and legitimacy – item allegedly unbalanced and unfair as National Front not legitimate commentator on immigration issuesFindings Principle 4 (balance) – programme presented both sides of debate – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – programme not unfair to identifiable person – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon on 10 May 2004 the presenter (Linda Clark) conducted a joint interview with the organiser of an anti-racism march in Christchurch, Mr Lincoln Tan, and the organiser of a National Front counter-march, Mr Kyle Chapman....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Larry Williams Drive Show – host expressed his views on the execution of Osama bin Laden – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – comments were clearly host’s personal opinion and did not amount to a “discussion” of a controversial issue of public importance – host referred to alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Larry Williams Drive Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 4 May 2011, the host expressed his views on the execution of Osama bin Laden. He stated: . . . The bin Laden photos will not be released, President Obama has announced this today, he said that he didn’t want to hold up a trophy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter made comments about the nationality of the Governor General – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards warranted more immediate response from broadcaster but remedial action taken in days following broadcast was reasonable – action taken sufficient – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-133:Associate Minister of Health (Hon Maurice Williamson) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-133 PDF1. 02 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-056:Sharp and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-056 PDF326. 28 KB...

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

Summary Allegations by homeowners that Fletcher Homes Ltd engaged in irregular practices with respect to the valuation and financing of new homes were the subject of a ministerial investigation, according to reports broadcast on One Network News on TV One on 26 and 27 February 1998 between 6. 00-7. 00pm. Through their solicitors, Fletcher Homes Ltd (FHL) and Residential Mortgages Ltd (RML) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reports were unfair, inaccurate, unbalanced and lacked objectivity. They also complained that TVNZ failed to respect the principles of law by broadcasting potentially prejudicial evidence prior to trial, thus raising the issue of contempt. In addition, they complained that the editing of the items distorted the facts. They asked for a full correction and apology to be published....

SummaryMalcolm Sutherland, a New Zealand soldier in Vietnam in 1970, was killed by "friendly fire". The incident was "covered-up" by the platoon commander, Lieutenant Roger Mortlock, and the death was reported officially as being the result of "enemy fire". The cover-up was explained on a 20/20 item broadcast at 7. 30pm on 21 February 1999. The item reported that (now) Brigadier Mortlock had recently resigned under threat of dismissal. Ms Banbury, the late Malcolm Sutherland’s sister, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the item breached her privacy as she and another brother had been filmed at an emotional time at a Vietnam Veterans’ Reunion in 1998 when they accepted an honour on her brother’s behalf at a time when they did not know the true situation....

Summary An item entitled "Prisoner of Law" examined the situation of a solo New Zealand mother who had given birth to a child in Sydney. It explained that in order to maintain custody of her child, she was required by the Australian Family Court to live in Sydney. The programme was broadcast on TV3’s 20/20 at 7. 30pm on 13 June 1999. Mr Tichbon complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced. It contravened the standards, he wrote, as the father was not asked for his perspective. Furthermore, Mr Tichbon added, the father was secretly filmed at the handover of the child. Explaining that the intention of the item was to illustrate the mother’s predicament and to question the law, TV3 denied that the father was vilified or portrayed as a bad father....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-161 Decision No: 1996-162 Dated the 21st day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATIVE PARTY Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 117/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 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 I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...