Search

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion about taxi safety – referred to taxi drivers as “cabbies” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “cabbies” not pejorative – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster not required to present views of non-Taxi Federation companies – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – did not imply that non-Taxi Federation members were at the “bottom end” of the industry – not unfair – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – programme was ambiguous as to whether Taxi Federation represented all companies – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9. 30pm on 22 June 2005. The series was set in a fictional Vatican City (called Popetown), and was centred around a young priest called Father Nicholas, a group of corrupt cardinals and a child-like Pope character. [2] During the episode on 22 June 2005, Father Nicholas became a wrestling hero after accidentally knocking out pro-wrestler “Ivan the Invincible”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – episode devoted to controversy about Meningococcal B vaccine and immunisation campaign – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – a range of significant views advanced about a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies and not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – taking into account the format of programme, panel member Ron Law treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The controversy about the Meningococcal B vaccine and the current immunisation campaign was dealt with during an entire episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 July 2005. The item included interviews undertaken in Norway at the laboratory that developed the vaccine on which the New Zealand vaccine was based....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a possible conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. ComplaintFace to Face with Kim Hill – interview about seabed and foreshore issue with John McEnteer – complaint that item unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 4 – “devil's advocate” approach used – interviewee not intimidated – not unfair – not upheld Standard 6 – style enabled issues to be explored – not unbalanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] John McEnteer of the Hauraki Trust Board was interviewed about the seabed and foreshore controversy on Face to Face with Kim Hill at 9. 30pm on TV One on 9 October 2003. [2] Garry Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was unfair and unbalanced as Mr McEnteer was interrupted and had been subjected to aggressive and “Pakeha-biased” questioning....

Complaint Sunday – item on Maui’s dolphins and introduction of set net ban – unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 – views of those opposed to the set net ban balanced against those in support – issues raised about treatment of complainants best assessed under Standard 6Standard 6 (preparation) – no evidence of assurances about scope of programme – not unfair – not upheldStandard 6 (presentation) – complainants’ position presented out of context – failure to mention alternative management plan unfair to complainants – upheld OrdersBroadcast of statement $2000 contribution towards complainants’ legal costsThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item about Maui’s dolphins explained that the species was in danger of extinction. It described set net fishing as the “single largest threat to [the] animal’s continued existence” and discussed the imminent Government ban on set net fishing....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – commentator (Hana O’Regan) compared the impact of views of the leader of the National Party (Dr Brash) to those of Hitler – allegedly offensive, irresponsible, unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings: Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – another perspective on extensively debated controversial issue – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – focus of comparison on process, not policy – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – limited factual comparison accurate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Commentator Hana O’Regan was interviewed by the presenter (Linda Clark) on National Radio’s Nine to Noon between 9. 54 and 10. 00am on 11 February 2004....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Darpan – report on first Hindu conference in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, programme information and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – report was not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard relates to an individual – no individual specified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in the item – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Council spokesperson explained what the conference was about – viewers were made aware that the conference had a number of themes – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – report was a fair and accurate reflection of the event – not upheld Standard 7 (programme…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Classic Hits Breakfast – comment about complainant – allegedly unfairFindings Principle 5 (fairness) – not unfair in context of complainant’s public profile, fleeting comment – not likely listeners would have taken comment literally/seriously – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Classic Hits Breakfast, broadcast on Classic Hits (Nelson) on the morning of 27 September 2004, presenter Kent Robertson commented on the death of Radio Fifeshire founder, Kevin Ihaia. During this commentary, he stated: And I must admit I got a little bit sad and reminiscent about it at one stage and I thought how unfair it is that at 50 Kevin should die and yet Gary Watson lives. Complaint [2] Gary Watson complained about the presenter’s comment....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Newstalk ZB – news item reported that Nicholas Keesing undertook an election smear campaign “to get revenge” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld complaint under Standards 5 and 6 – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster upheld complaint under two standards and offered corrective statement – action taken sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item broadcast on Newstalk ZB at 12pm on 23 November 2008 reported that “Newstalk ZB can now reveal what lies at the bottom of a smear campaign, in one of the country’s key electorates during the Election....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Sunday – previewed item on disputed territory of East Jerusalem – presenter stated, “Sunday travels to Israel to bring you Jew against Arab from a truly unique perspective” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was a fair summary of the situation featured in the programme – both sides were represented in the promo – did not reach threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard applies to individuals not groups – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – promo did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the current affairs programme Sunday was broadcast between 1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Beyond the Darklands: Antonie Dixon – case study of convicted murderer Antonie Dixon based on the recollections of friends, family, neighbours, police and others as well as analysis by psychologist – programme mentioned his marriage to the complainant and referred to her several times – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about the complainant – complainant’s children not identifiable in the programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – neighbour’s comments were clearly her recollection of events – programme not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and children not treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – interview with South African Rugby Union President about the possibility of a rugby game between the New Zealand Māori team and the South African team – allegedly in breach of fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – interviewee had sufficient opportunity to respond and clearly expressed his views – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Morning Report, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National between 6am and 9am on 20 February 2009, the host spent approximately six minutes interviewing the President of the South African Rugby Union. They discussed the possibility of revising the Union’s rules against playing racially selected sports teams, to allow a rugby game between the New Zealand Māori team and the South African team. The interviewee expressed the following views on the subject: . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported that a 40-year-old man had been accused of knowingly infecting people with HIV – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – identifiable to limited group of people who had seen the website or the photos – allegation of criminal behaviour not a private fact – HIV-positive status normally a private fact but public interest defence applied – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high level of public interest especially in alerting those who could identify the man – guideline relating to discrimination and denigration not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast at 7pm on TV One on 15 May 2009, was introduced as follows: What kind of person knowingly infects lovers with the HIV virus?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about large-scale animal neglect on a farm owned by one of New Zealand’s largest dairy producers – included footage of the complainant – allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled into believing the complainant was involved with animal cruelty on the farm – item accurate on material points of fact – majority – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – parts of the item borderline, but fair overall – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – complainant’s behaviour contributed to the way in which she was portrayed – majority – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussed Marc Ellis’s promotional stunt for his new business which involved discharging explosives on Rangitoto Island – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – not clear from the item that the stunt amounted to criminal activity – item did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify which individuals or organisations were treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 20/20, entitled “Guerrilla Marc[eting]”, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Thursday 15 November 2007, discussed the first major guerrilla marketing stunt that had taken place in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on two National MPs and whether they supported the National Party’s stance on global warming – included footage of a reporter asking the MPs whether they believed in global warming – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item was not about global warming – item looked at whether the personal views of two National MPs regarding climate change were consistent with their party’s stance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – reporter asked legitimate questions in a professional manner – MPs treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws talkback – discussed the release of a report by the Children’s Commissioner and Barnados which stated a quarter of a million children in New Zealand were living below the poverty line – host made critical comments about the Children’s Commissioner and the report – allegedly unfair and failed to present significant viewpoints Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – listeners would not expect a range of balanced views from Michael Laws’ talkback – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – host’s criticisms not unfair in robust talkback environment – important principle of freedom of speech that public officials are open to criticism – not unfair to deny complainant’s request to appear on air during unrelated programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio New Zealand National News – news item broadcast on the night before the General Election reported on upcoming election prediction made by leader of the Labour Party that Labour could still win the election – allegedly in breach of controversial issues - viewpoints and fairness Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – the policies of other political parties were canvassed earlier the same day – appropriate that Prime Minister had the final say – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unbiased – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....