Search

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 13/95 Dated the 9th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRIAN KIRBY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 109/95 Dated the 26th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLAN GOLDEN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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: 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: 1996-164 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: 1997-160 Dated the 4th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by NEW ZEALAND POLICE (Otago District) Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LTD S R Maling 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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-104 Dated the 10th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CANTERBURY HEALTH LIMITED of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryA telephone poll, organised by the Holmes programme, invited viewers to phone in to express their support for a minority government under the present Prime Minister. The results of the poll were reported on 13 August in the Holmes programme broadcast between 7. 00–7. 30pm and Tonight broadcast about 9. 40pm. Mr Carapiet complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the extensive coverage of the poll results on both Holmes and Tonight contrasted with the very brief report of the results of another poll two weeks previously. He noted that the earlier poll had only been reported on Holmes and not on Tonight, and argued this demonstrated that the broadcaster was not impartial. TVNZ responded first that selection of material for a news bulletin was a matter of editorial discretion....

Summary Overcrowding in state owned housing was the focus of an item on Holmes broadcast on 27 August 1998 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The issue had become topical when, the previous day, the Chief Executive of Housing New Zealand had suggested that for some families it was a matter of choice that they lived in overcrowded conditions. Michael Cashin, Chairman of Housing New Zealand, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair and unbalanced because it misrepresented the status of the family shown. In his view it was unfair and inaccurate that the programme portrayed the family as having not being offered any other options and being left to endure overcrowded accommodation. He maintained that TVNZ should have sought a privacy waiver so that Housing New Zealand could respond by discussing the true circumstances of the family shown....

Summary An item on 60 Minutes focussed on the Philadelphia Police Force, its Commissioner and its facilities and practices. The introduction to the item summarised some perceived problems of the New Zealand Police Force. The item was broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1998 commencing at 7. 30 pm. Deputy Commissioner Barry Matthews on behalf of the New Zealand Police complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate. He also complained that the item was unbalanced in failing to allow New Zealand Police the opportunity to present their crime strategies, and explain why the American practices were inapplicable. TVNZ responded that the item was not about the New Zealand Police, and so input from them was unnecessary....

SummaryThe involvement of the Prime Minister’s staff with Timberlands was the subject of news items on One Network News broadcast on 17, 18 and 19 August 1999 beginning at 6. 00pm, an item on Breakfast on 18 August beginning at 7. 00am, and an item on Holmes on 18 August beginning at 7. 00pm. It was reported that although Mrs Shipley had denied such involvement with the company after she became Prime Minister, papers released that day indicated otherwise. Hon David Carter, Associate Minister of Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the 18 August report was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. He pointed out first that Mrs Shipley had not denied that her staff had been involved with Timberlands since she had become Prime Minister....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintDateline – inaccurate – lacked balance – inadequately researchedFindingsStandard G1 – legitimate to report on research in progress – no uphold Standard G6 – balance achieved in period of current interest – no uphold Standard G15 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary "Safe and natural" plant estrogens were said to offer relief for symptoms of menopause according to an item on Dateline broadcast on TV3 on 26 April 2000 between 9. 30–10. 30pm. Richard James complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained inaccuracies and was unbalanced. He argued that taking plant estrogens was likely to expose women to unacceptable health risks. TV3’s initial response was an informal one. Addressing the points raised by Mr James, it maintained that the programme was not irresponsible, unbalanced or untrue....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "Finding Family" – violent family relationship described by woman victim – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – discriminated against men FindingsProgramme about family reunification, not spousal abuseStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – no uphold Standard G6 – no uphold Standard G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The theme of Documentary New Zealand: "Finding Family", broadcast on TV One on 31 July 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, was the reunification of family members who had been separated. One woman described how she had become separated from her son when she escaped from a violent relationship some 30 years previously. He was tracked down by the Salvation Army in Australia....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Back Benches – Mt Albert by-election special – programme featured candidates from Labour, National, Green, ACT and United Future – candidates campaigned for votes and addressed various issues facing the electorate – allegedly in breach of balance and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – programme discussed controversial issues of public importance – criteria used by broadcaster to select participants was justifiable – a variety of significant viewpoints was presented – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – ALCP did not take part and was not referred to – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Back Benches was broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 9pm on Friday 10 June 2009....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News at Midday – reported on alleged immigration scam and Gerard Otimi’s appearance in court – included a graphic “Immigration Scam” – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic not inaccurate in context of whole item which referred to “alleged” scam and “charges” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – would have been clearer to phrase graphic as a question – item made it clear the scam was “alleged” and Mr Otimi was facing charges – absence of question mark did not result in Mr Otimi being treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item reported on Mr Otimi’s appearance in Court – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote…...