Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-172 Decision No: 1997-173 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by Y H of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An item on Fair Go reported on a dart-throwing competition which had been won by an Auckland man. The competition had been organised by a promoter, who had arranged insurance for the event with his United States principal. After the competition had been won, the principal refused to accept the claim, asserting the winner’s throw had been wind-assisted. The item suggested the wind would not necessarily have assisted the winner. It also suggested that a competition clause excluding "assistance" for dart throwing had been utilised by the promoter to escape his liability to the winner. The item was broadcast on TV One on 21 April 1999 commencing at 7. 30pm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported on “skimming” scheme in which accused allegedly “fleeced money from customers who used eftpos machines inside at least one Auckland business” – referred to and showed footage of the “Brooklyn Bar” in Auckland where, according to one customer, he had his card “skimmed” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item wrongly identified the Brooklyn Bar as having been targeted by the fraud – Brooklyn Bar was singled out and was the only business identified, which was unfair and created the impression the business was unsafe – reporter should have obtained verification from the complainant who owns the bar – complainant not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and correct information – complainant and his business treated unfairly – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – studio discussion between presenter Paul Holmes, Pastor Brian Tamaki from the Destiny Church and Georgina Beyer MP – reaction to the street march in which Destiny Church members protested against the proposed Civil Union Bill – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – nothing inaccurate in item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item fair to all parties involved – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Holmes on TV One on 24 August 2004 at 7pm included a studio discussion involving the presenter, Pastor Brian Tamaki from the Destiny Church and Georgina Beyer MP. [2] The discussion concerned the street march through Wellington the previous day in which Destiny Church members protested against the proposed Civil Union Bill....

ComplaintOne News – car accident in which complainant’s son killed – reference to speed and alcohol – driver had not been drinking – poor taste – inaccurate – unfair – discriminatory FindingsStandard G1 – expression of opinion – no uphold Standards G2 and G13 – comments acceptable and did not encourage denigration – no uphold Standard G4 – a number of implications – implication about alcohol involvement no stronger than others – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A news item about road safety following 15 road deaths in five days over the Christmas holiday period, focused on one of the more recent deaths. A couple whose truck had been struck by a car which was airborne after striking the kerb, and in which one young man was killed, spoke about being extremely angry on seeing beer in the car....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a newsreader’s use of the term ‘rogue state’ in the introduction to a news item, referring to North Korea. The item reported on the resumption of peace talks between the leaders of the United States and North Korea, and segued into an investigation about the effects of economic sanctions on the people of North Korea. The complaint was that using the term was biased and lacked balance, and the term was better suited to describe the United States. In its decision the Authority noted that the term complained about was used only once, fleetingly, in the newsreader’s introduction and would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Father Ted – alleged crude humour – alleged disgraceful portrayal of Christian leadersFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – Guideline 6g – Father Ted does not encourage denigration of or discrimination against Roman Catholic priests – legitimate work of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Father Ted is a long running British comedy series. A repeat of episodes from the second series screened on TV One on Saturday evenings in November 2003 at 7. 30pm. Television New Zealand Ltd described Father Ted as a series which “makes fun of human foibles through the adventures of a small group of Roman Catholic priests assigned to a remote, fictional island off the coast of Ireland. ” The complainant watched the episodes broadcast on 22 and 29 November....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] In an election advertisement for the National Party, John Key stated, ‘we’ll start paying off debt’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was misleading because Treasury had forecast that debt would increase until 2018. Election advertisements promoting party policies, by their nature, are not ‘factual’. Viewers understand that they are highly political, often hyperbolic vehicles for advocacy, and are able to form their own views about any particular policy. Viewers would not have been misled. Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming), Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy, Misleading Programmes Introduction [1] An advertisement for the National Party was broadcast on TV3 on 28 August 2014....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-085–087:Church of Scientology of New Zealand, Frater and Kershaw and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-085, 1993-086, 1993-087 PDF2. 08 MB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview between Magic Talk host Ryan Bridges and World Health Organisation Special Envoy Dr David Nabarro. The complainant argued the interview contained inaccurate information about Sweden’s approach to COVID-19 and mask wearing, and inaccurately suggested Dr Nabarro advocated New Zealand adopt Sweden’s approach. The Authority found the relevant statements were comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard does not apply. It also concluded they were not materially inaccurate or misleading in the context of the interview. The standards of good taste and decency, balance and fairness either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a 1News broadcast discussing racial tensions arising from coalition government policies. The item mentioned a 1News Verian poll on whether the coalition government’s policies were increasing, decreasing, or making no real difference to racial tensions in Aotearoa New Zealand. The complainant alleged the broadcast, and the poll were ‘incredibly biased’ and that the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, accuracy, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint on the basis it raised issues under the accuracy, balance, and fairness standards that could all be dismissed on grounds previously explained to the complainant; the broadcast could not be considered to encourage discrimination or denigration; and the complaint concerned issues of personal preference and had been adequately addressed in the broadcaster’s decision....

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item broadcast secret recording of comments made by National Party deputy leader Bill English – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of anonymously supplied tape inherently unfair – however, Mr English had opportunity to comment, John Key provided comment, and 3 News informed viewers of circumstances surrounding the tape – degree of public interest leading up to election – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 4 November 2008, reported that 3 News had been sent a secret recording of comments made by the deputy leader of the National Party, Bill English, at a cocktail party during National's August 2008 conference. The 3 News presenter said, The recording is clearly designed to derail John Key’s election campaign ....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-145 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FR FRANK DOWNS of Turangi Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Allegations that Timberlands West Coast Ltd had lobbied the government to ensure that it could continue to harvest native forests were put to the company’s Chief Executive in an item on 20/20 titled "Unsustainable PR? " broadcast on 22 August 1999, beginning at 7. 30pm. Mr D L Hilliard, the Chief Executive of Timberlands, and Mr Stephen Sheaf each complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast lacked balance, was biased and unfair, and was intended to mislead viewers. Mr Hilliard, who was interviewed for the programme, also said that he had been misled as to its intention, and had consequently been treated unfairly. In its response, TV3 emphasised that the focus of the story had been Timberlands’ lobbying of the government, and noted that documents it had received indicated there was ample evidence of its having done so....

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....

ComplaintThe Last Word – item about high-achieving student – presenter made disparaging comment – unfair FindingsStandard 6 – comment about adolescence rather than the featured student – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item about a high-achieving 13-year-old boy in the United States was broadcast on The Last Word on TV One at 10. 30pm on 10 June 2003. At the item’s conclusion, the presenter made a comment about what she saw as the young man’s sense of self-satisfaction. [2] Frank Rogers complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the presenter’s disparaging comment was unfair and could invite bullying against the studious and clever. [3] In response, TVNZ stressed the style of the programme and the presenter’s well-known disdain for hypocrisy. As it regarded the comment as humorous, TVNZ did not uphold the complaint....

ComplaintDestiny Television: Homosexuality, Religion and God – series of six programmes delivering religious sermons – denigration of and discrimination against homosexual and transsexual people – offensive – inconsistent with legislation – errors of fact – not impartial – TVNZ upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from repeat broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspect upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings(1) Action taken on Standard 6 – insufficient – uphold (2) Standard 2 Guideline 2a – did not involve principle of law – no uphold (3) Standard 4, Standard 5 – not relevant – not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – no uphold OrderComplaints referred back to broadcaster under s. 13(1)(c) for further consideration of action to be taken This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Not Going Out – scene showed character dancing with baby – held baby at arm’s length and moved him from side to side – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – character did not shake baby – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no actual violence – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – classified AO and screened at 11pm outside of children’s viewing times – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – characters fictional – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not specify who he considered had been denigrated or discriminated against – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....