Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-061 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MURRAY ELSTON of Cromwell Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Summary Allegations that Timberlands West Coast Ltd had lobbied the government to ensure that it could continue to harvest native forests were put to the company’s Chief Executive in an item on 20/20 titled "Unsustainable PR? " broadcast on 22 August 1999, beginning at 7. 30pm. Mr D L Hilliard, the Chief Executive of Timberlands, and Mr Stephen Sheaf each complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast lacked balance, was biased and unfair, and was intended to mislead viewers. Mr Hilliard, who was interviewed for the programme, also said that he had been misled as to its intention, and had consequently been treated unfairly. In its response, TV3 emphasised that the focus of the story had been Timberlands’ lobbying of the government, and noted that documents it had received indicated there was ample evidence of its having done so....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Prime Minister John Key had referred “tea tapes” matter to the police – he commented that “The good thing is we’ve lowered the crime rate by seven percent right across the country so they do have a little bit of spare time” – reporter said that “John Key may face criticism on a couple of fronts, firstly, for saying that police have too much time on their hands” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers heard Mr Key’s original comment so they would not have been misled – viewers would have understood the item was broadcast in a robust political environment in the lead-up to the election – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – politicians are aware of robust political arena and should expect to have their views commented…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-009:Sharp and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-009 PDF257. 46 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-065:The Warehouse Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-065 PDF467. 48 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Radio New Zealand National broadcast an interview with the President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which provides reproductive health and education services in the United States. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the interview was unbalanced. The interview was clearly focused on the views and experiences of one woman, and the US political landscape as it relates to these health issues is not of public importance in New Zealand so balancing viewpoints were not required. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness Introduction[1] Saturday Morning contained an interview with Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), an organisation which provides reproductive health and education services in the United States (US)....

Complaint Target – test of mechanics attending breakdown and repairing a car’s cooling system – use of hidden camera – complainant most expensive repairer – insufficient explanation of reason for costs given – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandards 4, 5, and 6 – consumer advocacy programme – complaint essentially that complainant not dealt with fairly – subsumed under Standard 6 – as with all other participants one of two manufactured faults not found – services otherwise good – adequate explanation given of invoice – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The hidden camera segment on Target on 22 September 2002 featured mechanics called to a simulated breakdown situation. The car in question had two manufactured faults. The four companies selected were rated according to their performance at the breakdown, the work on the repair, and their charges....

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....

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 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Mana News – call for voters to vote for one mayoral candidate – unbalanced – encouraged discrimination against non-Maori – broadcaster upheld Principle 4 balance aspect – procedures revised to ensure longer period to vet Mana material Findings(1) Principle 7 – Guideline 7a – does not meet high threshold required for discrimination – no uphold - Guideline 7f – call to support candidate with understanding of Maori issues – not an advertisement for a specific candidate – no uphold (2) Action taken – appropriate in context of breach This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Two interviewees in an item on Mana News encouraged Maori voters to vote for a named candidate in the Auckland mayoral election. The item was broadcast on National Radio at 5. 55pm on 27 September 2001....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Is Your House Killing You? – featured family in Queensland – father had used a substantial amount of timber treated with Copper Chrome Arsenate (CCA) for landscaping and decking – programme stated that exposure to the chemicals in CCA-treated timber could cause serious health effects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts by relying on scientific experts – mostly expert opinion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Is Your House Killing You? was broadcast on TV One at 8pm on Friday 11 December 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Victoria’s Empire – presenter made statements about the use of the drug opium by Chinese people in the early nineteenth century – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenter did not state that the Chinese as a people were addicted to opium in 1839 – reasonable viewers would have understood that the presenter’s comments were included in an historical context to explain the onset of the Opium Wars – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant misinterpreted the presenter’s statement – presenter’s comments did not denigrate Chinese people – Chinese people treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Victoria’s Empire was broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on art piece commissioned for Venice Biennale at cost of $500,000 in public money – interview with Peter Biggs of Creative New Zealand – allegedly unfair to Mr Biggs and misleading/inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – not unbalanced – Mr Biggs was able to present his view – not upheld Standard 5 – item did not suggest that braying toilet was the work to be exhibited – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – Mr Biggs not treated unfairly – as a seasoned media commentator he was able to get his point across – not upheld Standard 8 – not relevant – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintIn Touch with New Zealand – interview with Dr Cabot about her book "Hormone Replacement Therapy: The Real Truth" – reference to phytoestrogens – commercial interests not acknowledged – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 – other views acknowledged – no uphold Principle 6 – not news or current affairs programme - opinions advanced – not fact – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Dr Sandra Cabot, the author of the book "Hormone Replacement Therapy: The Real Truth", was interviewed on In Touch With New Zealand at about 3. 30pm on 7 May 2003. She advanced the case for natural hormones applied in the form of a cream rather than synthetic hormones in tablet form. In Touch With New Zealand is a magazine-style programme with thematic music broadcast on National Radio each weekday between 2. 00–5. 00pm....

Summary Items on One Network News and Tonight on 19 June 1998 reported that the Act Members of Parliament had been requested by TVNZ to provide particulars of their assets and business interests. None, the reports said, had been willing to do so. The reasons for the refusal by two Act MPs were highlighted in the items. Mr McKay complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that it was being politically selective in failing to declare that similar information had been sought from members of other political parties. TVNZ, he continued, compounded its offence by publishing replies to its request from several Act MPs. TVNZ responded that Act was the one political party standing out against disclosure of MPs’ assets....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw – item contained an interview with Philip Zimbardo – interview discussed theories about why apparently good people do bad things in certain situations – host made reference to New Zealand psychiatric institutions and the fact that patients had made accusations that staff had abused them – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair The Authority’s DecisionPrinciple 4 (balance), Principle 5 (fairness), Principle 6 (accuracy) – complainant under a mistaken impression about the contents of the broadcast – complaint did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 8 July 2007, Radio New Zealand National’s Sunday Morning with Chris Laidlaw programme held an extensive interview with psychologist Phillip Zimbardo, who had recently published his latest book "The Lucifer Effect"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host discussed politicians and the use of binding referenda – host compared people who did not agree with the use of binding referenda to a woman meeting a man for the first time and saying "I'm yours, do anything you want with me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's remark did not invoke connotations of rape – not upheld Standards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – standards not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....