Search

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Probation Services Manager – conduct of the interviewer – biased – unfair Findings Standards 4 and 6 – live interview – not unbalanced – interviewee presented viewpoint – dealt with fairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with the Manager of the Probation Service was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 13 February 2003. The interview centred around the release of a report by the Probation Service regarding its management of an offender while on parole. [2] John Blackaby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and that the interviewee had been dealt with unfairly, because of the "bully-boy" conduct of the presenter....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – doctor commented that human life begins at implantation, not conception – inaccurate – contrary to accepted medical practice – dangerous – undermined respect due to human embryo FindingsPrinciple 4 – not relevant Principle 5 – not relevant Principle 6 – well-informed opinion – no uphold Principle 8 – reminder This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Medical Training Co-ordinator of the New Zealand Family Planning Association commented on Newstalk ZB on 27 February 2002 at around 8. 30am along the lines that human life begins at the implantation of the human embryo into a woman’s womb and not at conception. [2] Right to Life New Zealand Inc. complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster of Newstalk ZB, that the comments were inaccurate, contrary to accepted medical practice and dangerous....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with man about unproven sexual abuse when a child in the Order of St John of God – man paid $30,000 by Order on condition of confidentiality – unbalanced – unfair to Order FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – item made clear that the man’s views had been contested by Brother and there was no court case – Church spokesperson given reasonable opportunity to challenge his account – did not do so – man’s credibility left to viewer to assess – not unfair – not unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Patrick" was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 19 June 2002....

ComplaintSunday – investigation of Dr Richard Gorringe who had been found guilty of professional misconduct and disgraceful conduct through use of alternative medicines – biased – unfair – misleading FindingsStandard 4 – reasonable opportunities given – not unbalanced – no uphold Standard 6 – Dr Gorringe dealt with fairly as ample opportunity given to present views – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The use by Dr Richard Gorringe of alternative medicine, alongside conventional medicine, was investigated in an item broadcast on Sunday at 7. 30pm on TV One on 2 September 2003. Dr Gorringe had been found guilty by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal on two charges of professional misconduct and one of disgraceful conduct. [2] Margaret Kirk complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was biased and unfair, and trivialised the work of Dr Gorringe....

ComplaintHolmes Leaders’ Debate – Christian Heritage Party not invited – unbalanced – partial – unfair FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – editorial discretion exercised in balanced and fair way – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaders of eight political parties participated in the Holmes Leaders’ Debate broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 15 July 2002. The participants were chosen on the basis that the parties were represented in the outgoing Parliament. The leaders were questioned about aspects of their party’s policies. [2] The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about its exclusion from the Leaders’ Debate and the following Minor Leaders’ Debate. It said that the broadcaster had acted unfairly in not treating all political parties in the same way....

ComplaintPrivate Investigators – filming of Graeme Lee – privacy – unauthorised filming and broadcast – highly offensive and objectionable – unfair Findings (1) Privacy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – majority – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Private Investigators was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 July 2000. Private Investigators is a series about the activities of private investigators in New Zealand. Hon Reverend Graeme Lee, a gospel minister and former Member of Parliament, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached his privacy. He also complained to TVNZ that the broadcast was unfair to him. The programme included footage of Mr Lee arriving for a prayer meeting at a house where a private investigator was in the process of recovering goods from its occupants....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player. A doctor from ACC said it may well have been unethical for a doctor to use finance as a barrier to treatment....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – 4 June report on New Zealander and Viva Palestina aid worker Nicola Enchmarch’s reaction to being caught up in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla off Gaza – 5 June report on New Zealand protest marchers demonstrating against the raid – both items allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – items did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items provided a New Zealand perspective on the raid – reports did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any material points of fact he considered to be inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – criticised comments made by the Fire Service after a house fire in which four children died – called Fire Service spokespeople “cocks”, “idiots”, “morons”, “arseholes” – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – comments went beyond criticising firemen’s actions in professional capacity – sustained personal abuse of individuals – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Michael Laws Talkback programme was broadcast between 9am and 12 noon on Wednesday 7 January 2009. The host’s topic for the day was a house fire in Mangere in which four children had died and two adults were seriously injured....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item discussed the assault on convicted murderer William Bell by fellow prison inmates – presenter made a statement regarding the assault – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s statement was sarcastic – made clear to viewers that neither host supported violence against prisoners – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people referred to were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C)(c)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item looked at the business practices of a private chiropractic practice called The Spinal Health Foundation and its resident chiropractor, Dr Sean Parker – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not imply that Dr Parker was offering personal loans to patients or that pre-pay arrangements were unethical – statement relating to possible breaches of ethics was sufficiently qualified – not upheld – decline to determine point relating to changing of paperwork under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standard 6 (fairness) – questions asked of Dr Parker were generic – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – broadcaster treated Dr Parker fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes Breakfast – host discussed recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai – made various comments about Muslims and terrorism – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – programme was an opinion piece – lacked the necessary invective to cross the threshold for denigration – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues - viewpoints) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Muslim people – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

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

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 1989Eating Media Lunch – showed magazine photograph which reported that celebrities Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson had moved into a flat together – photograph included women’s Chihuahua dogs – presenter said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together” – allegedly offensive, unfair and deceptiveFindingsDecline to determine complaint under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10. 00pm on 5 April 2005, referred to an issue of New Zealand Woman’s Weekly featuring a photograph of celebrity flatmates Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson, and their pet dogs. The presenter referred to the dogs and said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together”. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unfair to the named celebrities....