Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Larry Williams Drive Show – host expressed his views on the execution of Osama bin Laden – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – comments were clearly host’s personal opinion and did not amount to a “discussion” of a controversial issue of public importance – host referred to alternative viewpoints – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During the Larry Williams Drive Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on 4 May 2011, the host expressed his views on the execution of Osama bin Laden. He stated: . . . The bin Laden photos will not be released, President Obama has announced this today, he said that he didn’t want to hold up a trophy....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-067–068:Newborn and Becker and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-067–068 PDF (1. 07 MB)...

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 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....

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 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 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....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview about legislation change to introduce paying the minimum wage to disabled people – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Principle 4 (balance) – presenter adopted aggressive manner with two interviewees – prevented interviewees from presenting significant viewpoints to listeners – listeners deprived of important information on controversial issue under discussion – unbalanced – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – one aspect of fairness complaint subsumed into consideration of Principle 4 – programme not unfair to Minister for Disability Issues – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion of recent campaign issues which had arisen in regard to forthcoming general election – commentators were a former president of the National Party, a former president of the Labour Party and a political science lecturer – allegedly partisan and unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – most of complaint based on personal preferences – role of minor parties raised issue of broadcasting standards – range of views advanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Agenda broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 10 September 2005 included a panel discussion about campaign issues relating to the general election then due on 17 September. Specific aspects were covered in different segments of the programme....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an MP who reactivated Dutch citizenship – possible breach of law – MP’s lawyer presented as constitutional specialist and not as legal representative Standard 5 – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster – role as lawyer since reported in other programme – action considered insufficient Standard 4 – balance – not considered by broadcaster – referred to AuthorityProcess Application by complainant for Discovery – declined Application by complainant for Interlocutory Decision – declinedFindings Standard 4 – item’s focus on possibility of by-election – balanced – not upheld Action Taken – a correction broadcast at the time of error should have occurred – now a year later, no order appropriate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint60 Minutes – decriminalisation of prostitution – unbalanced – partialFindingsStandard G6 – s. 4(1)(d) – balance achieved within the period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The proposal to introduce legislation to decriminalise prostitution was the subject of an item on 60 Minutes which was broadcast on TV One on 21 May 2000 at 7. 30pm. The report examined how decriminalisation had worked in New South Wales, where prostitution had been legalised for some time. Stephen Yeats complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was unbalanced because no views which opposed the proposal were heard. As he received no response to his complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 127/94 Decision No: 128/94 Decision No: 129/94 Decision No: 130/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TREVOR MALLARD MP and VALERIE L J GREHAN of Wainuiomata and WAINUIOMATA COMMUNITY BOARD and DENNIS J KEALL of Wainuiomata 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: 1996-089 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by TOM FREWEN 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: 1997-147 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOYCE HEIJBOER CAMPBELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-027 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MIKE GIBSON 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: 1997-087 Dated the 10th day of July 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 S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on 13 June about a 12-year-old Palestinian girl after six members of her family were killed by a shell on a Gaza beach – item suggested that shell was Israeli which had been fired in response to homemade rockets fired from Gaza – allegedly inaccurate for using falsified footage3 News – item on 14 June reported conflicting claims about who was responsible for the killing on the Gaza beach – denied by Israeli Defence Force (IDF) but Human Rights Watch said Israel was responsible – also included footage of another Israeli shell fired into Gaza which killed militants and innocent bystanders – allegedly unbalanced as it did not include evidence released by IDFFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – significant views advanced about controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no evidence that falsified footage used –…...