Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-021:New Zealand Mining and Exploration Association Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-021 PDF614. 69 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 133/94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P HEATHER COSH of Taumarunui 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: 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(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – item featured a woman who ran a sanctuary for ex-battery hens – included footage of caged hens – woman described condition of hens when they arrived at her property – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item focused on the experience of one woman – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about uric acid presented as fact – inaccurate but immaterial in context of human interest story – point was that chickens were in poor condition as a result of being caged – not misleading to use footage of battery hens – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – industry not an individual or organisation taking part or referred to – complainant did not take part and was not referred to – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does…...

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....

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 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

ComplaintCheckpoint – Prostitution Reform Bill – interview with Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP who abstained from voting – reference to Muslim background and comments from representatives of Muslim communities who had expected him to vote against the Bill – blamed for passage of Bill – held up to ridicule and contempt – unfair FindingsPrinciple 4 – MP given right to reply to criticism – no uphold Principle 5 – MP not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Prostitution Reform Bill was passed in Parliament by one vote on 25 June 2003. In an item broadcast on Checkpoint on National Radio at 5. 00pm on Thursday 26 June, comment was made that the Bill would not have passed had Mr Ashraf Choudhary MP not abstained....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Election 2005 and Close Up – debates between Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and Labour and National parties’ finance spokespersons, prior to the 2005 General Election – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – complaint a matter of viewer preferences – no issue of broadcasting standards arose – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] TVNZ broadcast two political programmes on TV One prior to the 2005 general election. The first was Election 2005, a live studio debate featuring the Prime Minister Rt Hon Helen Clark and National Party leader Dr Don Brash, screened on 22 August 2005. [2] The second was Close Up, which involved a studio discussion without an audience between Labour’s finance spokesperson, the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, and National’s finance spokesperson John Key, broadcast on 23 August 2005....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – coverage of the Makara cemetery desecration – graphic beside the news presenter showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol – inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Action taken – sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 6 August 2004 dealt with the desecration of Jewish graves in Wellington. [2] The graphic beside the news presenter during the introduction to this item showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol. [3] There was no suggestion during the news broadcast, other than the graphic, that the anarchist movement was involved in this incident....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19891XX News – items reported on repeat complaints about campaign overspending – stated, “Detective Inspector [name] says the Independent Police Conduct Authority determined [the police] investigation was thorough and followed correct procedure....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 38/94 Dated the 9th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRENDAN ROBERTS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the murder of Deidre Tobin by her partner Craig Jackson – Mr Jackson found not guilty by reason of insanity – interviewed Ms Tobin’s family and friends plus two detectives who believed Mr Jackson was faking his insanity – allegedly in breach of law and order, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – Authority unable to determine the position of the Crown solicitor – overall programme was balanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Jackson, Dr Simpson or the Tobin family – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item entitled “Insanely Jealous?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: How to Spot a Cult – two-part documentary – spoke to former members of cults – included three former members of Scientology – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Church of Scientology was well informed about the nature of the programmes – Church’s responses were included in the programme – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Inside New Zealand: How to Spot a Cult was a two-part documentary series which was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Wednesday 25 November and Wednesday 2 December 2009....

Summary Good Morning’s nutritionist interviewed a representative from the International Soy Advisory Board and demonstrated the use of soy products in cooking in a broadcast by TVNZ on TVOne on 3 May 1999 beginning at 10. 00am. Mr James of Whangarei complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programme was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate as it did not warn viewers of the known health risks of using soy products, nor did it reveal that the guest was either a consultant to or an employee of a company which markets the products. TVNZ responded that the programme did not purport to investigate the merits of soy products, but was essentially a cooking demonstration carried out while the guest discussed the principal ingredient. It maintained that as research on the benefits of soy products was equivocal, it was not in a position to judge whether the broadcast was accurate....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-003 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID AITCHISON 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: 147/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M JAMES of Raglan Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter made comments about the nationality of the Governor General – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards warranted more immediate response from broadcaster but remedial action taken in days following broadcast was reasonable – action taken sufficient – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...