Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday Morning with Wallace Chapman, titled ‘Abortion and Civil Liberties – the Thames Stand-Off’, discussed ‘pro-life’ protestors, Voice for Life, and their longstanding protests outside Thames Hospital. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter was biased and that his treatment of the ‘pro-life’ representative was negative, unfair and unbalanced in comparison to his treatment of the ‘pro-choice’ representative. The Authority found that Mr Chapman’s treatment of the interviewees did not result in an unbalanced broadcast, as both perspectives on the debate were adequately put forward during the programme. While Mr Chapman’s questioning of the ‘pro-life’ representative was robust, his criticisms related to the Voice for Life group as a whole, and he did not attack the interviewee personally or come across as abusive towards her, such that she was treated unfairly....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments made by Paul Henry during Rebuilding Paradise with Paul Henry undermined the Director-General of Health’s directions regarding compliance with COVID-19 Alert-Level conditions. Mr Henry noted there were no new cases of COVID-19 on the day of broadcast and commented, ‘I don’t want Dr Ashley Bloomfield to threaten me and you with the “if New Zealanders aren’t good at Level 3, they won’t get to Level 2” warning. I realise people think he walks on water, but I don’t. …Obedience in the population is the job of the police and, god help us, the reluctant [Police] Commissioner’. Noting the importance of the right to freedom of expression and that Mr Henry was clearly giving his views on a topic of high public interest, the Authority found no actual or potential harm that justified regulatory intervention....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on an instance of alleged illegal fishing in a marine reserve. The introduction stated, ‘A dive company owner has described [the fishing] as a “blatant and reckless raiding party”. Video posted on social media appears to show the men at the Poor Knights Islands [which has] been protected for decades…’ Clips of the video were shown in the item, with the individuals’ faces blurred. The complaint was that the story was ‘ill informed’ and had caused ‘a lot of harm’ to the individuals involved and their families, including death threats....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about Sports Chat on RNZ’s Morning Report, during which the guest commentator briefly summarised violence surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv football match against local Dutch team Ajax in November in Amsterdam, including: ‘the Amsterdam Mayor has come out and said, look, criminals on scooters searched the city for Maccabi supporters in hit-and-run attacks. …said [they were] all antisemitic. ’ The complaint was that RNZ ‘severely distorted’ the context of the events to the point of inaccuracy; discriminated against and denigrated ‘the Amsterdam people who responded to Maccabi’s racist provocations’ and immigrants, by ‘choosing to represent this as antisemitism’; and lacked balance and fairness by excluding Amsterdam locals’ perspective. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the brief summary of the Amsterdam mayor’s response was not materially misleading in the context of Sports Chat, and the remaining standards did not apply....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – four items reporting special investigation into Ministry of Social Development’s “Community Max” projects questioned how millions of dollars had been spent – reporter visited sites of six projects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on the issue within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – very small number of minor points had the potential to be misleading – however in the context of four items which legitimately questioned government spending upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – MSD should expect that as a government Ministry it is subject to scrutiny…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on court proceedings in which the complainant was found guilty on charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 – contained footage of SPCA raid at his property and photographs of cats and dogs – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – photographs legitimately obtained by SPCA – use of archive footage justified given ongoing interest in Mr Balfour’s activities and properties – footage of dogs in a playpen was innocuous and used as visual wallpaper to report on court proceedings in which Mr Balfour was found guilty of serious charges – footage of Mr Balfour being served with search warrant was not obtained by “prying” – harm to Mr Balfour in terms of underlying objective of privacy standard resulted from conviction, not the item – item did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coke Countdown – Top 40 music video clips – allegedly sexually explicit and in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – denigration requires a high threshold – no denigration of women – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interest of child viewers – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Coke Countdown was broadcast on TV2 on Sunday 8 May 2005 from 10am to 12 noon. [2] The programme was a Top 40 show, featuring the most popular hit songs of the week. The fourth spot in the line up featured the song “Candy Shop” by hip hop artist 50 Cent, and featured female vocalist Olivia....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on battle in Gaza Strip – reported 15 Palestinians killed including teenaged son of one of Yasser Arafat’s close allies – Palestinian combatants described as “militants”– item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate – should have described Palestinian combatants as “terrorists” – should have described provocation for incidentFindings Standard 4 (balance) – brief item described incident and views of both sides – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “militants” not inaccurate – item not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item treated both sides of conflict fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast at 6pm on 12 February 2004 reported on a battle in the Gaza Strip between Israeli troops and Palestinians, in which 15 Palestinians were killed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on celebration of 38th anniversary of coronation of Maori Queen at Turangawaewae marae – item explained that significant part of celebrations included remembering deceased friends and family – comments from Professor James Ritchie as to why this aspect of celebrations significant – commented on Maori and Pakeha attitudes towards death – allegation that item unbalanced and inaccurate in that it portrayed generalised view of spiritual attitudes based on racial lines FindingsStandard 4 (Balance) – item did not discuss issue of controversial public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) – comments from Professor Ritchie expression of opinion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintMore FM – radio competition – disclosure of work-place – unfair – breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (v) – complainant’s work-place private information – uphold – apology to complainant sufficientPrinciple 5 – broadcaster upheld complaint – action taken sufficientNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] On 10 May 2002, B entered a radio competition on More FM in Dunedin. B’s work-place details were broadcast, after he had specifically stated that he did not want his work-place disclosed on-air. [2] B complained to More FM, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached his privacy and was a "blatant and deceitful" breach of the requirement that broadcasters deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a broadcast. He also complained directly to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the same broadcast had breached his privacy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a discussion on a talkback segment on Newstalk ZB breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the complainant, who had called in to the programme, was not treated unfairly as she was given an opportunity to voice her opinion and was treated respectfully. The Authority also found that the broadcast’s criticism of United States President Donald Trump did not exceed what could fairly be expected to be levelled against a highly controversial United States President. The Authority noted that the balance and accuracy standards apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the accuracy standard does not apply to statements clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. The discrimination and denigration standard also did not apply as it does not apply to individuals or organisations. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-033 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintTarget – description of house cleaner as tradesperson – denigration of tradespeople – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – offensive Findings (1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – no uphold (3) Standard G4 – no unfairness – no uphold (4) Standard G13 – no denigration or discrimination – genuinely held opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 at 7. 00pm on 14 May 2000 featured footage of employees of four Hamilton house cleaning services who had been secretly filmed as part of a hidden camera trial. One of the male cleaners had been filmed engaging in improper sexual behaviour....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Homai Te Pakipaki – singing contest – viewers had the opportunity to vote via text messaging for their favourite contestant – allegedly in breach of fairness, programme information and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – programme clearly based on popularity with voters rather than talent – standard does not apply to viewers as they are not individuals taking part or referred to – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – conditions of voting were made clear – no evidence to suggest that viewers were deceived or disadvantaged – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was not targeted at children – broadcaster adequately considered interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Homai Te Pakipaki, a karaoke-style singing contest, was broadcast on Māori TV at 8....

ComplaintNine to Noon – host read out email critical of Whanau series – host highlighted grammatical and typographical errors in email – breach of right of individuals to express own opinions – breach of requirement to deal justly and fairly with person referred to in programme – failure to show impartiality on question of a controversial nature FindingsPrinciple 4 – host presented email correspondent's point of view – no uphold Guideline 4a to Principle 4 – host presented correspondent's opinion – no uphold Principle 5 – correspondent not treated unjustly or unfairly – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Nine to Noon programme broadcast on National Radio on 14 August 2001, the host read out a number of responses received from listeners via phone, fax or email....

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Party Infrastructure Advertisement – contained images of infrastructure that was allegedly planned, consented, funded and mostly completed under the previous Labour Government – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) of the Free-to-Air TV Code – advertisement created impression that the National-led Government had a role in the examples of infrastructure shown – however language in the advertisement was couched in present and forward-looking terms rather than looking at past achievements – not inaccurate – fairness standard only applies to individuals or organisations taking part or referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....