Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – item featured a woman who ran a sanctuary for ex-battery hens – included footage of caged hens – woman described condition of hens when they arrived at her property – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item focused on the experience of one woman – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about uric acid presented as fact – inaccurate but immaterial in context of human interest story – point was that chickens were in poor condition as a result of being caged – not misleading to use footage of battery hens – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – industry not an individual or organisation taking part or referred to – complainant did not take part and was not referred to – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Prince Philip’s birthday – host noted that the Prince had criticised a number of ethnic and social groups over the years – host mentioned the right to freedom of expression – showed a picture of Prince Philip defaced with a moustache and horns, with a speech bubble saying “I’m a dork” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – innocuous prank – raised no issue of good taste and decency – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Prince Philip – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 – 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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and One News Tonight – reported on teachers’ industrial action – stated that the teachers’ union had rejected the Government’s offer of a 2 percent pay increase, and that teachers were fighting for a 4 percent increase on their base salaries – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints and spoke to representatives of the teachers – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant has not provided evidence that the figures were inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individuals or organisations he believed had been treated unfairly – no unfairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on a study into the effects of 1080 poison on native robins – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – the use of 1080 as a method for pest control in New Zealand is a controversial issue of public importance – use of 1080 has been the subject of ongoing debate and the item contributed a new development in the debate – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of arguments on both sides of the debate – significant viewpoints were presented in the programme to an extent that was appropriate given the nature of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccurate headlines did not form part of television broadcast so outside our jurisdiction – reporter’s statements were not material to the focus of…...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards about a Q + A interview with David Seymour on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged TVNZ’s reporting on the Bill, in this broadcast and in general, was biased; interviewer Jack Tame inaccurately claimed the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a partnership and erroneously cited the ‘Fleming version’ of the Treaty; and it was unfair to ‘only present one side of an argument’. The Authority found the balance standard does not apply to concerns of bias, and the audience was likely to be aware of significant perspectives on the Bill from this broadcast and other media coverage. It also found it was not misleading to suggest the Treaty/Te Tiriti is a partnership or cite the official English text of the Treaty. The fairness standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments made during Perspective with Heather du Plessis-Allan on Newstalk ZB regarding the New Zealand Police’s decision to continue with charges against Ms Z, the woman involved in the Jevon McSkimming case. The complaint was that the comments – including labelling their relationship an ‘affair’, saying Ms Z was ‘not innocent’, and referencing ‘bunny-boiler behaviour’ – demonstrated classic ‘victim blaming’, minimised and misrepresented Ms Z’s experience, and were unbalanced and unfair. The Authority considered the segment overall was consistent with well-established audience expectations, and any potential offensiveness or unfairness arising from some of the comments did not outweigh the right to freedom of expression or the public interest. The Authority also found the comments were either clearly opinion or not materially inaccurate and not required to be balanced in the context....

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item reporting on Te Pāti Māori’s ‘reset’, the co-leaders’ reaction to questioning at a media conference, and Te Pāti Māori’s newest MP Oriini Kaipara’s maiden speech in Parliament. The complaints alleged the segment was unbalanced and biased as the broadcast did not report on the temporary suspension of Parliament following haka and waiata after Kaipara’s maiden speech. The Authority found the segment was a straight news report and not a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, meaning the balance standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a brief, light-hearted discussion on ZM’s Bree & Clint programme about listeners’ suggestions to use methamphetamine to stay awake breached broadcasting standards. The complainant alleged the discussion made methamphetamine appear ‘cute’, it was offensive for the hosts to discuss it on air, promoted the drug to the audience and was unfair. The Authority found the discussion was within audience expectations of the programme and station and was not likely to promote use of the drug. Though the conversation was light-hearted, the hosts specifically acknowledged the drug could ‘ruin [their] lives’. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Fairness...

 The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a 1 News segment that discussed allegations and criticisms about the operations of the Tongan Health Society. The segment featured interviews with former employees and Board members who criticised the management of the Society, its CEO Dr Glenn Doherty, and called for an independent review of the Society. The Authority found that the requirements of the fairness and balance standards were met as TVNZ had taken reasonable steps to seek, and then adequately presented, the Society’s point of view on the issues raised in the programme. The Authority found the disclosure of the CEO’s request for a bonus and extracts from correspondence between the CEO and Board relating to this amounted to a breach of privacy, but determined that the defence of public interest applied on this occasion. Not Upheld: Balance Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-035 Dated the 28th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CANON G J J A HADLOW of Rotorua Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-094 Decision No: 1996-095 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-152 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RATEWATCH of Waitakere City Broadcaster HORIZON PACIFIC TELEVISION LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryA radio station announcer, claiming he was doing a survey on STDs, telephoned a woman and asked a number of personal and intimate questions. The call was broadcast live on The Edge on 30 November 1998 at about 4. 00pm. J, the woman who received the call, had identified herself using her first name and employer’s name. She complained to the station that the call was a serious invasion of her privacy as she was never told that the caller was from a radio station, or that it was being broadcast live. J said the comments ranged from being personal to obscene, and cited some examples. When the matter was referred to the station initially, J received an apology both from the station manager and the announcer....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with Larry Baldock about the citizens-initiated referendum on smacking – host asked the interviewee a question nine times challenging him to give an answer – host interrupted interviewee on several occasions – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – host played the role of devil’s advocate – significant points of view presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee was robustly challenged and given an adequate opportunity to express his views – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....