Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-024:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-024 PDF337. 02 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-149 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE MONARCHIST LEAGUE OF NEW ZEALAND INC Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary The Jesus Seminar movement, which denies the literal resurrection of Christ, was the subject of an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One beginning at 7. 00 pm on Good Friday, 10 April 1998. Mr Fox complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was biased and unbalanced in failing to interview a person of equal academic standing to Dr Veitch, who had been interviewed on behalf of the movement. Footage of school children in the item gave the message that Easter was for children and at the same level of belief as the Easter bunny, he wrote. TVNZ replied that it was appropriate on Good Friday to reflect on the diversity of views which existed within Christianity. The pastor interviewed had an extensive background in theological research, TVNZ wrote, and he provided the item’s balance....

SummaryAn item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 1 October 1998 between 7. 00-7. 30 pm, examined the Hikoi of Hope. It featured a representative from the Anglican Church and a critic of the hikoi, each being interviewed by the presenter. Ms Larkin complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the presenter’s introduction to the item was insulting, and contained derogatory descriptions, such as "the Hiccup of Hypocrisy". The presenter’s statements made it clear, she said, that the item would not be presented in a fair and neutral manner. TVNZ responded that while the Hikoi of Hope was a serious attempt to draw attention to the reality of poverty in New Zealand, the Anglican Church’s sponsorship of it had been controversial....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Victoria’s Empire – presenter made statements about the use of the drug opium by Chinese people in the early nineteenth century – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenter did not state that the Chinese as a people were addicted to opium in 1839 – reasonable viewers would have understood that the presenter’s comments were included in an historical context to explain the onset of the Opium Wars – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant misinterpreted the presenter’s statement – presenter’s comments did not denigrate Chinese people – Chinese people treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Victoria’s Empire was broadcast on TV One at 7....

...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item examining the firearms licensing system and whether it was “too easy to get your licence” – showed hidden camera footage of volunteers taking firearms safety test – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – majority considers item failed to properly explain the place of the firearms safety test within the entire licensing scheme – viewers deprived of a significant perspective on whether it was too easy to obtain a firearms licence in New Zealand – majority uphold Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item did not denigrate or treat MSC instructors unfairly – licensed firearms-holders not a “section of the community” as envisaged by the guideline – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – apology from Mr Holmes for comments he made about UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Newstalk ZB – apology said to be unbalanced, inaccurate and breached requirements for law and order Findings Standard 2 – not applicable – decline to determine Standard 4 – personal statement – balance not an issue – decline to determine Standard 5 – no inaccuracy – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Paul Holmes, the host of Holmes broadcast on TV One on weekdays at 7. 00pm, made a personal statement on Holmes on 29 September 2003 about some comments he had made on Newstalk ZB. Among some other comments made on Newstalk ZB, he had described the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as a “cheeky darkie”. His comments had received extensive media coverage....

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – item about Death with Dignity Bill – man featured with motor neuron disease – wanted choice about his time of death – unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – human interest story – referred to issue of euthanasia – euthanasia canvassed in other programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Shortly before the Death with Dignity Bill was to have its first reading in Parliament, an item on Holmes featured a person dying from motor neuron disease who hoped the Bill would be passed. If the Bill was passed, the person said that he would have the right to choose the time of his death. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 29 July 2003. [2] D A Armstrong and P Schaab both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced....

ComplaintChannel Z – News item – arrest of man for the kidnapping of Kahurautete Durie – reported that the accused expected to have a hard time in jail – announcer expressed pleasure at that prospect – offensive, unfair and unbalanced – broadcaster upheld aspect that item failed to distinguish between fact and opinionFindingsPrinciple 1 – not offensive – no upholdPrinciple 2 – did not encourage breach of law – no upholdPrinciple 3 – accused not named – no breach of privacy – no upholdPrinciple 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdPrinciple 6 – facts sourced and distinguished from opinion – no upholdPrinciple 7 – gang spokesmen cited – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The arrest of a 54 year-old man accused of kidnapping Kahurautete Durie was reported in a news item on Channel Z broadcast at 8. 00am on 22 April 2002....

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – panel discussed National Party’s welfare reform policy – panellist expressed his view that there was a “welfare industry” which had an interest in ensuring beneficiaries remained on benefits – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – New Zealand welfare system including welfare reform amounted to a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints in the programme – issue ongoing so listeners could reasonably be expected to be aware of alternative viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state that welfare was not a “legal” entitlement – panellist’s statements were his personal comment and opinion and therefore exempt under guideline 5a – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Introduction [1] Afternoons with Jim Mora, broadcast on Radio New Zealand…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-146:Bryant and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-146 PDF305. 77 KB...

An appeal against this decision was allowed in part in the High Court with the Authority instructed to amend its order: AP158/91 PDF (204. 76 KB)Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-025:Mansell and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-025 PDF683. 79 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-029:O'Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-029 PDF1. 33 MB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Bullies, a three-part documentary series, discussed the issue of bullying in schools. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the documentary was unbalanced and misleading because it did not discuss the success of certain nationwide bullying prevention programmes. The documentary did discuss various anti-bullying programmes and was not otherwise misleading. Which anti-bullying initiatives to feature, and in what detail, was a matter of editorial discretion for the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] An episode of Bullies, a three-part documentary series, discussed the issue of bullying in schools. [2] David White complained that the documentary was unbalanced and misleading because it did not discuss the success of nationwide bullying prevention programmes. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards as set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....