Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-164 Decision No: 1996-165 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by BRENDAN TUOHY (2) of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 87/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LESLIE GEE of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Mike Yardley Mornings – Newstalk ZB – discussion about financial problems at Christchurch Hospital – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and socially irresponsible FindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – balanced discussion in talkback context – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one comment about acute demand provision inaccurate – upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – balanced discussion in talkback context – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 29 April 2004, Newstalk ZB talkback host Mike Yardley introduced the Mike Yardley Mornings show with a discussion about financial problems at Christchurch hospital....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Go Show – showed young girl visiting the zoo with her mother – mother told her that apes were the closest animals to humans so they were “relatives” – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance requiring balance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment on The Go Show – a New Zealand-made children’s series – involved a young girl visiting the zoo with her mother who, she said, had told her that they “might meet up with our relatives”. The pair visited a number of enclosures and the young girl asked several times when they would see their relatives....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-007 Decision No: 1998-008 Decision No: 1998-009 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLAN HILL of Wellington and GLADYS GARDNER of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-033 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-168 Decision No: 1996-169 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR JOHN READ of Auckland and NEW ZEALAND PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY INC. Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 55/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KEITH AND KAY BURGESS of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 2/95 Dated the 24th day of January 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reporting research into filicide, where parents murder their children – presenter noted that filicide “is often committed by men” – interviewed two women whose partners had murdered their children and referred to a third case where a mother had murdered her daughters – allegedly unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance in terms of balance standard – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not allege that any person or organisation taking part or referred to in the broadcast was treated unfairly – standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s visit to New Zealand – allegedly unbalanced and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item 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 One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 July 2008, reported on US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice’s visit to New Zealand. The reporter stated that relations between New Zealand and America were “warming”, and that Dr Rice had “[described] the two countries as allies for the first time in 20 years”. Footage was shown of press conferences held with Dr Rice, Winston Peters (the then Minister of Foreign Affairs) and Helen Clark (the then Prime Minister), in which they made positive comments about the countries’ relationship....

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....

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 under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday item about former foster parents who had pleaded guilty to smacking a foster child on the hand with a wooden spoon – had originally faced a number of other abuse charges – CYFS removed two children from their care and said they were no longer suitable foster parents – interviews with former foster parents and CYFS representative – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – programme did not question CYFS’ general policy of removing foster children who had been smacked by their foster parents – wider issue about acceptability of smacking was not the controversial issue discussed in the item – reconstructions of vandalism a matter of fairness, not balance – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with Sir Eion Edgar – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Monday 22 February 2010, the host interviewed Sir Eion Edgar as he had recently been named Senior New Zealander of the Year....

ComplaintSpace – two items about visits to studio which makes porn videos – promoted pornography – offensive and unbalancedFindingsStandard G2 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G6 – not a serious item – satirical – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items on the magazine programme Space showed one of the hosts visiting a business which made pornographic videos and trying to sell a script. The items included some interviews with people in the business, and contained shots of the host in a spa pool with four topless women. The items were broadcast at 10. 25pm on both 1 and 8 June 2001 on TV2. Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the items promoted pornography, and thus were offensive and unbalanced....

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....