Search

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – programme contained teaser for item in upcoming episode – teaser about a teenage boy who had committed suicide and the events leading up to his death involving two girls – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – girls not identifiable beyond those who already knew of the events – teaser did not draw any conclusions about their motives or character – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Wednesday 17 February 2010. At the end of the programme, a teaser was shown for an upcoming item that was going to be screened in the following week’s episode....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – item about violence encountered by staff working with dementia patients – contained interviews with a nurse working in a dementia ward, a representative from the Nurses Organisation and a spokesperson from the Ministry of Health – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – broadcaster presented the required significant viewpoints – perspective of care providers not vital to discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment complained about was not a statement of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people and organisations taking part and referred to treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item discussed “all-out war” between the Wellington Mayor and a city councillor – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of psychologist trivialised the situation but viewers unlikely to have taken her comments seriously – Mayor given adequate opportunity to comment – not unfair to Ms Prendergast or to the Council – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 16 July 2009, was introduced by the presenter as follows: What on earth is going on at Wellington City Council?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item about a woman who believed a company called Christine Layby owed her $900 – woman shown visiting the company director’s home to demand a refund – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – ownership of a business not a private fact – disclosure of that fact not highly offensive – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine three aspects – other aspects related to website material only or interviewees’ own views – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant had sufficient opportunity to comment – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Native Affairs – item looked at the work Te Whanau Manaaki O Manawatu Trust was doing for Māori suffering from alcohol, drug and violence issues – item contained interviews with two people who were part of the trust’s recovery programmes – item contained footage of gang members – presenter made various statements about the interviewees – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about being drug and alcohol-free related to the parties, not Mr B and Ms D themselves – statement relating to the trust’s DHB funding inaccurate – action taken by the broadcaster to rectify the inaccuracy appropriate in the circumstances – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard applies to individuals and organisations not communities – not unfair for the broadcaster to use library footage of gangs – 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 that a homicide investigation was underway after the death of Rotorua high school principal Hawea Vercoe – presenter stated that Mr Vercoe had died after being punched to the ground during a fight – included details of a recent conviction – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reporters entitled to rely on information provided by police – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the report was accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – family did not take part and were not referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Sunday 22 November 2009, reported on the death of high school principal Hawea Vercoe....

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with witness – anti-police – unbalanced – partial – prejudice to fair hearing FindingsStandard G6 – eyewitness account necessarily focused on one perspective – balance achieved over time – no uphold Standard G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A witness to the shooting of a young man by a policeman in Waitara was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on 17 July 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The item recorded that there was some discrepancy between what the eyewitness had told the police immediately after the incident and his statement to a private investigator some days later. Martyn Stewart complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was an "emotive display of pure sensationalism" which would have incited the public to be biased against the police....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host read out viewer feedback and made comments about a female guest's appearance – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld fairness complaint, apologised to complainant and spoke to host and senior staff of Breakfast – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – action taken sufficient – breach of standards handled appropriately by the broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 25 March 2009, a Greenpeace representative was invited onto the programme to discuss the issue of compensation for the health effects of nuclear testing. [2] Following the interview, in a viewer feedback segment at 7....

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 declined to determine a complaint about an interview with National Party MP and Leader of the Opposition Christopher Luxon. The complaint alleged the interview was disrespectful and biased, with the interviewer interrupting and expressing their own political views. The Authority has consistently not upheld complaints of a similar nature, and this complaint did not raise any specific issues which would distinguish it from the previous findings on the same issue. Decline to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Balance (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...

The Authority has not upheld complaints under the accuracy, balance and fairness standards from several complainants about a broadcast of AM on 1 September 2022. The morning news broadcast contained two segments about a recent ‘backtrack’ by the Government on a proposal to apply GST to management services supplied to managed funds (including KiwiSaver). During the first segment, this was described as ‘a tax on your retirement savings’. In the second segment, the specifics of the proposed tax were clarified: ‘technically it wasn't a tax on KiwiSaver funds, it was a tax on the fees applied to KiwiSaver funds’. The Authority found the alleged inaccuracy in the first segment was immaterial to the audience’s understanding of the broadcast as a whole, and mitigated by the second segment where a more detailed description of the proposal was provided....

The Authority1 has not upheld a complaint a discussion on an inquiry and proposed reforms to the Retirement Villages Act 2003 breached the accuracy, balance and fairness standards, due to the broadcaster failing to provide prior warning to the complainant of the inclusion of a further participant to the discussion, and for not providing sufficient time for the complainant to respond to the new participant’s analysis. The Authority found the complainant was provided with a fair opportunity to articulate his position and to respond to concerns raised by other participants; the alleged inaccuracies amounted to analysis, to which the accuracy standard does not apply, and the analysis was not materially misleading with respect to any facts referred to. Noting the perspectives included in the broadcast, the Authority found the complainant’s concerns about balance were better addressed under accuracy and fairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld four complaints that interviews on Q+A with Israeli and Palestinian representatives breached multiple broadcasting standards. On 21 April 2024, Jack Tame from Q+A interviewed Ran Yaakoby, the Israeli Ambassador to New Zealand. On 5 May 2024, Q+A interviewed Dr Izzat Salah Abdulhadi, head of the Palestinian Delegation to New Zealand. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims that: statements made by Yaakoby and Tame were inaccurate; Tame did not push back hard enough on Yaakoby; the interviews did not provide balance; the 21 April interview was unfair to Hamas, offensive, and discriminatory. The Authority did not uphold complaints under the accuracy standard on the basis: the relevant points concerned opinion to which the standard does not apply; reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy; any harm was outweighed by freedom of expression; or the points were not materially inaccurate....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 2/94 Dated the 19th day of January 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NATIONWIDE GUARANTEE CORPORATION LIMITED of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that an interview on Afternoons, shortly after an announcement the Broadcasting Standards Authority was to be abolished, breached the balance and fairness standards. The complainant said the interview lacked balance and fairness as it did not include the views or a representative of the BSA. Noting the nature of the broadcast and conflict presented by determining issues associated with itself, the Authority considered that, in all circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined. Declined to determine (section 11(b), Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances): Balance, Fairness...

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....