Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Larry Williams Drive Show – host interviewed director of the Middle East Forum about his concerns with the growing Muslim population in Europe – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on interviewee’s views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments conveyed interviewee’s personal opinion – no discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – interview would not have alarmed or…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Rural News reported on a number of political parties ‘vowing to crack down’ on foreign ownership of farmland and contained an interview with the Federated Farmers Vice President. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item presented an inaccurate and unbalanced picture of the policies proposed by the Labour Party and others, and was unfair. The item was presented from the perspective of the Federated Farmers spokesperson who offered his personal views based on his experience buying land in New Zealand. The item sufficiently acknowledged alternative views, it carried high public interest, and no one was treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness Introduction [1] Rural News reported on a number of political parties ‘vowing to crack down’ on foreign ownership of farmland....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-060–062:Sharp, Nelson and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-060, 1992-061, 1992-062 PDF858. 38 KB...

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

ComplaintOne News – in view of low water levels, news item about the exposure of ships sunk in River Danube in Second World War – estimated up to 2000 bodies in the river – reference to Nazi navy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 – not relevant – no uphold Standard 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdStandard 5 – unable to establish facts – decline to determine Standard 6 not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The extremely low levels of the River Danube in Serbia had resulted in the exposure of a number of German Navy ships from the Second World War which had been scuttled as the Nazis withdrew. It was reported that up to 2000 people on the ships had been drowned when the ships were scuttled....

Complaint"A Tale of Tofu" – National Geographic documentary – unbalanced coverage of controversial topic – inaccurate FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – item dealt with tofu’s cheapness, versatility and availability, not health issues – not controversial topic – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary "A Tale of Tofu" was broadcast by Sky Network Television Ltd on the National Geographic channel on 8 October 2000 at midday. It provided a cultural and historical overview of the role of tofu in Chinese life. Mr R F James complained to Sky Network Television that the broadcast was unbalanced because it presented tofu in a positive light, and failed to acknowledge that there was a significant body of evidence which showed that it was not healthy, and that it posed irreversible dangers to consumers....

ComplaintOmission to broadcast news about Invercargill businessman – unbalanced – deceptive programming practiceFindingsComplaint about omission to broadcast – editorial judgement – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryBrent Procter complained that local news bulletins on Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits Invercargill had failed to cover the activities of an Invercargill businessman who had been charged with fraud. He contended that in this omission the broadcaster had failed to show balance and had used deceptive programming practice in its broadcasts during the period of newsworthiness, notably between 6 March and 10 March 2000. The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, responded for both stations that broadcasting standards were not breached as the story in question had not been broadcast. Dissatisfied with TRN’s response, Mr Procter referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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....

Complaint60 Minutes – Police shooting of Steven Wallace – unbalanced – erroneous FindingsStandard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold Standard G6 – broadcast balanced – balance also achieved in period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 60 Minutes looked at events in Waitara in the minutes before the Police shooting of Steven Wallace. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 6 May 2001. Ian White complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast was "totally unbalanced and erroneous". TVNZ did not consider that the programme had been inaccurate. It also maintained that the programme had been balanced. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr White referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 96/94 Dated the 6th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W I G FOUNTAIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 32/95 Decision No: 33/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE UNBORN CHILD and MERLENE AND JOHN GLIDDON of Waiomu Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

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....

Summary An item entitled "Prisoner of Law" examined the situation of a solo New Zealand mother who had given birth to a child in Sydney. It explained that in order to maintain custody of her child, she was required by the Australian Family Court to live in Sydney. The programme was broadcast on TV3’s 20/20 at 7. 30pm on 13 June 1999. Mr Tichbon complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced. It contravened the standards, he wrote, as the father was not asked for his perspective. Furthermore, Mr Tichbon added, the father was secretly filmed at the handover of the child. Explaining that the intention of the item was to illustrate the mother’s predicament and to question the law, TV3 denied that the father was vilified or portrayed as a bad father....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, and in breach of privacy and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standards 4 (balance) – not upheld Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) – majority uphold Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] RT made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV One’s Sunday programme at 7. 30pm on 1 July 2007. It was alleged that the programme breached Standards 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code. [2] The complainant referred the complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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....

Summary An interview with a bisexual author of erotic books was included in 60 Minutes broadcast on TV One on 31 October 1999 between 7. 30–8. 30pm. The woman described herself as "an amateur sexologist" and explained how she had become an expert on the subject of erotica. Mr Hausmann complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the material was pornographic, breached the good taste standard and was unsuitable to be shown at a time when younger viewers could be watching. He also maintained that the item lacked balance because it did not show the serious downside of what he termed sexual addiction. TVNZ responded that the programme had profiled a New Zealand woman who had been approached by a publisher to produce a work on female erotica. It suggested that the complainant had made an unfair assumption by concluding that the woman had a sexual addiction....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on New Zealand protestor’s decision to travel to Gaza with his son as part of a humanitarian aid flotilla – commented on recent Israeli commando raid on another aid flotilla – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on one man – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Close Up was an unclassified current affairs programme – item would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – discussed “the model who can’t go to fashion week because she’s too big” – interviewed the model and her mother as well as the manager of her modelling agency – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created clear impression that Nova was not putting forward the model for work because of her hip size – viewers would have been misled by the omission of other reasons including the model’s refusal to work for Nova – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not deny that Nova’s manager explained the other reasons in his interview – those reasons were not included in the story – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on one individual – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form…...