Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge Afternoons with Guy, Sharyn and Clint the hosts ran a segment called ‘Shaz Dog’s Love Shack’, where listeners could text and call in to ask for advice on love and relationships. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that ‘a discussion of sexual positions’ breached standards. The segment was consistent with the style of content and humour regularly broadcast on The Edge, and was unlikely to surprise or offend the target audience of 15- to 39-year-olds. Most of the content was in the nature of sexual innuendo and would have gone over the heads of younger listeners....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs broadcast an item entitled 'What Lies Beneath', which reported on the recent conviction of Northland farmer Allan Titford and examined the cultural and legal impact he had on race relations in New Zealand. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the item was biased, inaccurate and unfair. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's conviction, the item was materially accurate and subject to editorial discretion, and no one was denigrated or treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] Native Affairs broadcast an item entitled 'What Lies Beneath', which reported on the recent conviction of Northland farmer Allan Titford and examined the cultural and legal impact that he had on race relations in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Coast FM News reported that Zero Commission ‘has been making low ball offers’ to shareholders of various companies. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that Zero Commission and its shareholders were treated unfairly as no opportunity was given to respond to the claims or the negative impression created. The minority did not consider the item was unfair as Zero Commission could reasonably expect some commentary from time to time that it would not like or agree with. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the use of the term ‘low ball’ was inaccurate as this was a subjective term, not a point of fact. The controversial issues standard was not applicable because the item focused squarely on one company, not a controversial issue of public importance....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...

Tapu Misa declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Fijian Language Programme – interview with Adi Asenaca discussing the policies of the deposed SDL government – Ms Asenaca gave her views on the coup and the interim government – allegedly in breach of balance and social responsibility standards Findings No recording available – decline to determine complaint under s11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Niu FM during its Fijian Language Programme on 23 March 2007, contained an interview with former Fijian MP Adi Asenaca. [2] The interview focused on discussing several policies and laws introduced by the former Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua (SDL) government in Fiji....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Tonight – teaser for upcoming item on Prince William and Kate Middleton – presenter stated, “Will they, won’t they? Is the next King of England set to tie the knot? ” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – complaint trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Tuesday 9 November 2010, contained a brief, five-second teaser for an upcoming item on Prince William’s engagement to Kate Middleton. The presenter stated, “Will they, won’t they? Is the next King of England set to tie the knot?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Documentary entitled Michael Jackson's Mind looked at history of Michael Jackson's unconventional behaviour – behaviour analysed by psychiatrists and psychologists – comments sought from range of other people – programme used extracts from previous documentary Living with Michael Jackson – allegedly unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – not controversial issue of public importance – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Authority unable to determine whether extracts of Martin Bashir documentary used in context – decline to determine – other comments by psychiatrist not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On 30 May 2005, at 9. 30pm, TV2 broadcast a documentary entitled Michael Jackson's Mind....

Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 15 December 1997 focussed on two teenage girls whose mother had died, owing about $2,000 to Adelphi Finance. The broadcast related how the girls’ father had moved in to care for them and how, shortly after, furniture in their house had been repossessed on behalf of that company. Adelphi Finance Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was factually inaccurate, distorted the actual events, was unbalanced and partial, and presented a misleading impression of both the complainant and the circumstances of the repossession. TVNZ responded that the complainant was given every opportunity to present its side and to have it included in the item. Further, it noted that a studio summation of the complainant’s case was included at the end of the broadcast....

Summary Mr Mark Middleton, stepfather of a murdered 13 year-old girl, publicly threatened to kill the murderer should he be granted release from prison on parole. Because of this threat, the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Agency (CYPFA) removed a foster child whom he had been looking after for three years. In an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 27 August 1999, Mr Middleton was interviewed about CYPFA’s actions. CYPFA's position was advanced in the interview by Hon Roger McClay, Commissioner for Children. Mr Bracey complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item breached broadcasting standards as it failed to respect the principles of law, and was unbalanced....

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-071 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-131 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HON PETER DUNNE Leader of United New Zealand Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Illegal New Zealand – episode looked at the illegal trading of guns in New Zealand – reporter used hidden camera to record footage at a gun show in Auckland – footage included conversation between the undercover reporter and complainant – complainant’s face not pixellated – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfairly presented complainant in a negative light – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Illegal New Zealand was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Thursday 9 July 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – host discussed recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai – made various comments about Muslims and terrorism – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – programme was an opinion piece – lacked the necessary invective to cross the threshold for denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues - viewpoints) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Muslim people – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 60 Minutes – item reporting on the reaction to the proposed Civil Union Bill before Parliament – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on 60 Minutes entitled “Union Trouble” was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2004 at 7. 30pm. The focus of this segment was the reaction of various groups to the proposed Civil Union Bill. [2] The broadcast included interviews with the Pastor of the Destiny Church, a gay couple, a lesbian Presbyterian Minister and the managing director of the Maxim Institute. Complaints [3] Rachel Trimble complained to CanWest TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the 60 Minutes programme was neither balanced nor impartial....