Search Rapua

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....

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....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand – Mental Breakdown – three people suffering from serious mental illness – released into community – tragic results – documentary said to be unbalanced and inaccurate, and to have denigrated the mentally ill Findings Standard 4 – item’s focus on three cases where the mental health system had failed – balanced in view of narrow focus – not upheld Standard 5 – accurate in view of item’s focus – not upheld Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no discrimination against or denigration of mentally ill in view of item’s focus – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Three cases involving people suffering from serious mental illness who were released into the community with tragic results were examined in a documentary broadcast on TV One. The programme Documentary New Zealand – Mental Breakdown was screened at 8....

ComplaintOne News – item reporting preliminary hearing of private prosecution of Constable A for murder – report of evidence of prosecution witness – unbalanced – biased – broadcaster’s response to complainant assumed his sympathy for Constable A – complainant argues that assumption influenced determination FindingsStandard 4 – coverage of trial ongoing – day’s coverage balanced – no uphold Standard 6 and guideline 6a – one day’s evidence reported fairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The evidence given by a prosecution witness about events he had seen in Waitara on the morning of the shooting of Steven Wallace was dealt with in a news item which reported the second day of the private murder prosecution of Constable A. The item was included on One News broadcast on TV One on 22 January 2002 between 6. 00–7. 00pm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – “On This Day” segment referred to financial markets crash in 1929, advances in the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, dedications to two famous monuments and birthdays of famous people – viewer feedback pointed out that it was also the date the New Zealand Declaration of Independence was signed in 1835 – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – segment did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – signing of the Declaration was referred to in viewer feedback – viewers would not have been misled by the omission of information about the Declaration in the segment – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3rd Degree considered a controversial and increasingly popular high fat and low carbohydrate diet. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the item was unbalanced and inaccurate because it was more favourable to the ‘pro-fat’ side of the debate. The broadcaster clearly made efforts to interview experts on both sides of the debate, and viewers were left to make up their own minds or seek further information about the merits of the diet. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness Introduction [1] An item on 3rd Degree considered a controversial and increasingly popular high fat and low carbohydrate diet. A reporter interviewed a number of experts, and also talked to several people who had experienced weight loss and health benefits from the diet. The item aired on TV3 on 23 April 2014....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-025:Gray and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-025 PDF1. 23 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-016:Hon Richard Prebble MP and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-016 PDF2. 82 MB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-015 Dated the 27th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AUCKLAND TROTTING CLUB (INC) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host discussed politicians and the use of binding referenda – host compared people who did not agree with the use of binding referenda to a woman meeting a man for the first time and saying "I'm yours, do anything you want with me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's remark did not invoke connotations of rape – not upheld Standards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – standards not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Target – test of mechanics attending breakdown and repairing a car’s cooling system – use of hidden camera – complainant most expensive repairer – insufficient explanation of reason for costs given – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandards 4, 5, and 6 – consumer advocacy programme – complaint essentially that complainant not dealt with fairly – subsumed under Standard 6 – as with all other participants one of two manufactured faults not found – services otherwise good – adequate explanation given of invoice – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The hidden camera segment on Target on 22 September 2002 featured mechanics called to a simulated breakdown situation. The car in question had two manufactured faults. The four companies selected were rated according to their performance at the breakdown, the work on the repair, and their charges....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on vandalism at Horowhenua Rowing Club – included footage of the complainant verbally abusing a kayaker, and interview with complainant – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item suggested that the complainant may have been responsible for the vandalism – however, the complainant was provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to rebut that suggestion and the reporter made it clear that no one had been charged for the vandalism – the complainant explained his behaviour as depicted in the footage – use of the term “uncle” to link the complainant and a young rower would not have changed viewers’ impression of the complainant or the situation – reference to assault conviction was correct at the time of broadcast – overall, complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – use of the term “uncle”…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-003:Ritchie and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-003 PDF364. 95 KB...

ComplaintFair Go – repairs to computer unsatisfactory and costly – inaccurate – unbalanced – misleading – breach of privacy. FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – no uphold Standards G6 – not applicable Standard G4 – use of secret microphone by protagonist – unfair – uphold Privacy principle (iii) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Fair Go on 15 November 2000 investigated a complaint from the owner of a computer about the extent and the cost of some repair work carried out by Auckland Computer Services. Fair Go is a consumer advocacy programme broadcast weekly at 7. 30pm on TV One. Steve Moodley, trading as Auckland Computer Services, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host commented with reference to ACT MP David Garrett, “He is a complete waster....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-113–114:Smits and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-113, 1993-114 PDF798. 21 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported on tensions between the Horowhenua Rowing Club and certain local Māori residents over the future of the club’s use of the building next to Lake Horowhenua. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The item carefully conveyed a complex issue, was not factually inaccurate and would not have misled viewers in any material respect. While the conflict surrounding the rowing club’s presence at Lake Horowhenua is a controversial issue of public importance, the item included the viewpoints of both parties and was sufficiently balanced. The item did not treat the nominated individuals unfairly, as they were not criticised and had a reasonable opportunity to give their views....