Search

ComplaintIn Touch with New Zealand – discussion about soy products – commercial promotion – harmful aspects not addressed – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4 – magazine item – controversial issues explicitly put to one side – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Soy products were discussed in an item broadcast on In Touch with New Zealand on 31 July 2001. This magazine programme is broadcast on National Radio each weekday between 2. 00–5. 00pm. [2] R J James complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced as listeners were not advised that soy products were potentially hazardous. [3] In response, RNZ questioned whether the use of soy products was a controversial issue for which balance was required, but nevertheless, it argued that debate in the media was ongoing. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about meeting of the five McCartney sisters with President Bush in Washington – women’s brother had been killed by IRA – item also showed President Bush meeting Irish Prime Minister – item later reported that the President declined to meet with Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams – item failed to identify Irish Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 4 and Guideline 4a (balance) – no discussion of controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 and Guideline 5a (accuracy) – Irish Prime Minister identified as such in the script – not inaccurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – item dealt with interview of the Hon John Tamihere MP published in Investigate magazine – Mr Tamihere had later claimed that he did not know the interview was being recorded – item included extracts of interview with complainant, Ian Wishart, editor of Investigate, who spoke about recording process – item also discussed journalistic ethics as to when interviews are “on” or “off the record”, and the specific expectations of interviews with politicians – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – credibility of serving Member of Parliament and former Cabinet Minister is controversial issue of public importance – credibility issues raised and viewers left to decide – competing accounts presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – broadcast of anonymous interviewee’s allegations that the Hon David Benson-Pope was guilty of bullying students at Bayfield High School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – broadcasting allegations by anonymous interviewee unfair – RNZ did not verify interviewee’s credibility to a high standard before granting anonymity – did not undertake sufficient independent investigations into interviewee’s story – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue whether Mr Benson-Pope bullied students during his time as a teacher – RNZ made reasonable efforts to present significant perspectives within period of current interest – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one aspect subsumed under Principle 5 – decline to determine whether allegations were accurate – describing a caning as a “beating” not inaccurate – not upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $5,000…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – priest accidentally removed “Pope’s” head and sewed it back on – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – balance not required – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An animated comedy series called Popetown centred around Father Nicholas, an idealistic young priest who lives in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown) with a group of corrupt cardinals and a pogo-stick riding infantile Pope....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about fathers frustrated with the Family Court system – included interview with father who had been involved in custody dispute – identified his eight-year-old daughter – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, in breach of daughter’s privacy and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts about child – not in child’s best interests – no public interest in disclosing facts – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster presented significant viewpoints on controversial issue under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and guideline 9i – child unnecessarily identified and exploited – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 13(1)(d) – payment to JB for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $3,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500 This headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – programme focussed on forthcoming Civil Unions Bill – included a telephone poll asking viewers to respond to the question “Should gay relationships be legally recognised” – polls results found 24% in favour of gay relationships being recognised and 76% against – closing comments by host queried which polls politicians in support of the Bill were relying on – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – poll not presented as scientific – results reflected only the views of those willing to call in – limitations of poll clear – host’s comments presented as opinion not fact – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed former SIS agent about its operation in the 1970s involving Dr William Sutch and representatives of the Soviet Embassy – former agent said that Dr Sutch had been a spy for 30 years – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements clearly expressions of former agent’s opinion – not facts – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no unfairness to members of Dr Sutch’s family – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Kit Bennetts, a former SIS agent who had obtained High Court approval to publish a book covering aspects of his work, was interviewed on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion about taxi safety – referred to taxi drivers as “cabbies” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “cabbies” not pejorative – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster not required to present views of non-Taxi Federation companies – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – did not imply that non-Taxi Federation members were at the “bottom end” of the industry – not unfair – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – programme was ambiguous as to whether Taxi Federation represented all companies – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryThe sum of $90 million had been granted by the government to start a Maori television station, reported the breakfast host of the talkback session broadcast on Radio Pacific between 6. 00–9. 00am on 20 May 1998. He referred to this figure on a number of occasions even when advised by a guest, the Opposition Spokesperson on Broadcasting, that the correct figure was $19 million. Ms Thompson complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that the broadcast was inaccurate, unbalanced, deceptive and failed to respect the principles of partnership between Maori and Pakeha. Explaining that the host was confused between the figure given for the Maori television station and the public broadcasting fee, Radio Pacific upheld the complaint about inaccuracy. It apologised and offered to broadcast an explanatory statement. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and Sunday – items discussed suppressed evidence from the David Bain trial that had been released by the courts – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsOne News Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item reported on the evidence released by the court in a neutral manner – contained comment from Mr Bain’s supporter Mr Karam – reporter explained reasons for the evidence being suppressed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Sunday Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item contained comment from those individuals whose evidence had been suppressed – contained comment from Mr Karam – Mr Bain treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item looked at the disputed territory of East Jerusalem – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – both sides given adequate opportunity to explain their point of view – broadcaster provided viewers with the significant viewpoints required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – UNICEF representative’s comments were opinion – Mr Kuttner provided his opinion on evictions and explained why barriers and guards were needed – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Kuttner given opportunity to provide his point of view on the issues discussed – dealt with fairly by broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand documentary: “What’s Really in our Food” – discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme fairly presented significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to persons or organisations taking part or referred to in the programme – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled “What’s Really in our Food” was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 13 September 2007. The programme discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

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....

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....

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....

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 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....