Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye – focused on a chemical named paraphenylenediamine – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate or misleading statements – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to seek comment from the industry body – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on TV One’s Close Up programme, broadcast on 25 May 2007 at 7pm, discussed the severe allergic reactions two women had experienced as a result of a chemical used in their hair dye....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

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”…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]One of the hosts of talkback show, The Two, treated two callers in a way that the complainant considered to be unfair. The broadcaster upheld his complaint in relation to one of the callers. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the action taken by the broadcaster was insufficient, or that the broadcast otherwise breached standards. Talkback radio is recognised as a robust and opinionated forum in which hosts may sometimes behave rudely. The host in this case was expressing her opinion, and her comments did not go beyond what could reasonably be expected....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that various 1 News items referring to Joe Biden as the ‘president-elect’ before confirmation by the United States Electoral College breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found this was a technical distinction that would not have altered viewers’ overall understanding of the items, therefore it was not a ‘material’ point of fact for the purposes of the accuracy standard. To the extent the items touched on the outcome of the United States election, which in some circumstances may amount to a controversial issue of public importance triggering the balance standard, the Authority was satisfied the standard was not breached taking into account the perspectives acknowledged within the items as well as in a wide range of other coverage both by TVNZ and media generally....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm concerning a car accident breached several standards by featuring images of dead bodies in the car wreck. The complainant believed there were dead bodies shown in the wreck, which they found highly distressing. The Authority acknowledged the complainant’s distress, however, after carefully reviewing the broadcast, found that no bodies were featured. In considering the images of the car wreck shown, the Authority considered that the footage was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards, so the good taste and decency standard was not breached. It further found that an audience advisory was not required, and the programme information standard was not breached. The balance, accuracy, privacy, and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Roger Morris complained that an alleged discussion on Worldwatch about the 'Ukraine coup d'etat' failed to mention a number of key facts, primarily about the United States' involvement in the conflict. The Authority declined to determine the complaint as the broadcast identified by the complainant in his complaint did not feature any content about Ukraine. Declined to Determine: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Roger Morris complained that an alleged discussion on Worldwatch about the 'Ukraine coup d'etat' failed to mention a number of key facts, primarily about the United States' involvement in the conflict. He considered that the omission of these facts was in breach of the controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards of the Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-174 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CLIVE HAYWARD of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary The dissatisfactions expressed by a number of students at the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch were examined in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. A follow-up item was broadcast on Holmes on TV One between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 12 April 1999. The Managing Director of the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the April item was unfair and unbalanced, and inaccurate in a number of respects. TVNZ considered that one aspect of the item was unfair, and in breach of the standards, as Ms Hudson was not advised that a telephone conversation between herself and a student, contained in the broadcast, was being recorded. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint relating to the alleged inaccuracies or lack of balance....

Paul France declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – afternoon host made comments about Green Party MP Keith Locke – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – viewers would have realised comments were host’s and callers’ interpretation of Mr Locke’s stance – public figures are open to criticism – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Newstalk ZB’s afternoon show, broadcast between 1pm and 4pm on 5 January 2009, the host started a discussion about Green Party MP Keith Locke, saying: Keith Locke’s another one. He’s an apologist for terrorism....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News at Midday – reported on alleged immigration scam and Gerard Otimi’s appearance in court – included a graphic “Immigration Scam” – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic not inaccurate in context of whole item which referred to “alleged” scam and “charges” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – would have been clearer to phrase graphic as a question – item made it clear the scam was “alleged” and Mr Otimi was facing charges – absence of question mark did not result in Mr Otimi being treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item reported on Mr Otimi’s appearance in Court – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reporting research into filicide, where parents murder their children – presenter noted that filicide “is often committed by men” – interviewed two women whose partners had murdered their children and referred to a third case where a mother had murdered her daughters – allegedly unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance in terms of balance standard – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not allege that any person or organisation taking part or referred to in the broadcast was treated unfairly – standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – studio discussion between presenter Paul Holmes, Pastor Brian Tamaki from the Destiny Church and Georgina Beyer MP – reaction to the street march in which Destiny Church members protested against the proposed Civil Union Bill – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – nothing inaccurate in item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item fair to all parties involved – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Holmes on TV One on 24 August 2004 at 7pm included a studio discussion involving the presenter, Pastor Brian Tamaki from the Destiny Church and Georgina Beyer MP. [2] The discussion concerned the street march through Wellington the previous day in which Destiny Church members protested against the proposed Civil Union Bill....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Edwards at Large – interview with complainant – interviewee ambushed into taking part – unfair, partial and unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – interview not unbalanced – no upholdStandard 6 – complainant adequately informed of the reason for her contribution and the role expected of her – conduct of interview not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Lynley Hood was interviewed by Brian Edwards on Edwards at Large about the content of her book “A City Possessed: the Christchurch Civic Crèche case”. The programme was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on Saturday 16 August 2003. [2] Ms Hood complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was neither balanced nor impartial and that she had been ambushed into participating in the interview....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Breakfast – hosts commented that immigrant doctors "can't be as good as our doctors", "they would stay overseas if there's opportunity to make more money overseas" and that immigrant doctors require training which makes the job of locally-trained doctors "more challenging" – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were hosts' personal opinions – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – comments made during brief exchange between co-hosts – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overseas-trained doctors an occupational group and not individual or organisation to which standard applies – Mr Powell treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – broadcaster did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on Hone Harawira’s travel expenses – stated that he “racked up a $35,000 travel bill. . . that’s almost $4000 more than the Māori Party’s total travel bill” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair to Mr Harawira FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – comparison based on Parliamentary Service expenditure only – failed to mention that Māori Party MPs also received funds from Ministerial Services – created misleading impression that Mr Harawira spent more than the entire Māori Party on travel – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hone Harawira is a political figure who should expect robust criticism – not unfair – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 28 April 2011, reported on MP Hone Harawira’s travel expenses....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-046 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P G CURRAN of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...