Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-123 Decision No: 1996-124 Dated the 3rd day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DUPONT (NEW ZEALAND) LTD Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 77/94 Dated the 8th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY 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: 156 /95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 29/95 Dated the 11th day of May 1995 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 L M Loates W J Fraser...

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 Sunday – item on Maui’s dolphins and introduction of set net ban – unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – views of those opposed to the set net ban balanced against those in support – issues raised about treatment of complainants best assessed under Standard 6Standard 6 (preparation) – no evidence of assurances about scope of programme – not unfair – not upheldStandard 6 (presentation) – complainants’ position presented out of context – failure to mention alternative management plan unfair to complainants – upheld OrdersBroadcast of statement $2000 contribution towards complainants’ legal costsThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item about Maui’s dolphins explained that the species was in danger of extinction. It described set net fishing as the “single largest threat to [the] animal’s continued existence” and discussed the imminent Government ban on set net fishing....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported – release of woman’s lawyer’s letter when lawyer was criticised by Minister of Immigration – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair to lawyer and failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – no principles of law involved – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – lawyer not given opportunity to respond to Minister’s criticism – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misleading as to source of letter – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to lawyer – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent developments in the case of a young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported were covered in an item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 beginning at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Insight: "Learning the Hard Way" – documentary about privately-run tertiary courses – segment about the film industry included references to The Film School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – complaint more appropriately assessed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – fact alleged to be inaccurate was expression of opinion to which standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item about students getting “duped” by substandard courses – only institution identified was The Film School – implied The Film School was one of these substandard courses – no evidence to suggest that it was substandard – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary The dissatisfactions expressed by a number of students at the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch were examined in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. A follow-up item was broadcast on Holmes on TV One between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 12 April 1999. The Managing Director of the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the April item was unfair and unbalanced, and inaccurate in a number of respects. TVNZ considered that one aspect of the item was unfair, and in breach of the standards, as Ms Hudson was not advised that a telephone conversation between herself and a student, contained in the broadcast, was being recorded. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint relating to the alleged inaccuracies or lack of balance....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – item about security camera outside apartment in Auckland – owners concerned that camera would capture images inside their home – item said the Police had assured them that camera was broken, and once fixed any images would be pixellated – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss issue of controversial public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – one statement misleading – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item dealt justly and fairly with the Police – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On TV3 at 6pm on 30 November 2005, an item was broadcast on 3 News about a security camera positioned outside the apartment of an Auckland couple....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 58/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCILLORS Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 82/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WHANAU SOCIAL SERVICES INC of Flaxmere Broadcaster TE REO IRIRANGI O NGATI KAHUNGUNU INC (Radio Kahungunu) J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-044 Dated the 30th day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M SCOTT of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item mentioned Charlotte Dawson a number of times – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Decline to determine complaint under s. 11(a) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 on 8 November 2005 at 10pm contained a segment called “Save our Stars”, in which an actor went around the streets of Auckland collecting donations for various television presenters currently working for Prime Television. Correspondence [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the number of times Charlotte Dawson, a local celebrity, was mentioned in the programme. He argued that she had been referred to at least 11 times in the last 10 minutes of the episode, and submitted that Standards 4, 5 and 6 had been breached....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 33/94 Dated the 2nd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – selection of items to include in news programmes is a matter of editorial discretion – complainant did not specify which parts of the programme breached standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Tuesday 29 June 2010. Complaint [2] River Tucker complained to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that “the lack of any in-depth reporting into issues that are important to New Zealanders” on 3 News breached standards relating to the discussion of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item about Tana Umaga’s appointment as All Black captain – reference to Mr Umaga’s dreadlocks – presenter allegedly implied that dreadlocked sportspeople are incompetent and engage in sexually deviant behaviour and law breaking – allegedly breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter’s comments innocuous – neither indecent nor in bad taste – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – matters complained about not expressed or implied in the broadcast – no basis for any of the complainant’s allegations in presenter’s comments – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....