Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-021 Decision No: 1996-022 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WINTON ALLEN of Lower Hutt and A G T WANE of Warkworth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 42/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CASINO CONTROL AUTHORITY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...

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(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 1989Sunday – item about former foster parents who had pleaded guilty to smacking a foster child on the hand with a wooden spoon – had originally faced a number of other abuse charges – CYFS removed two children from their care and said they were no longer suitable foster parents – interviews with former foster parents and CYFS representative – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance because it dealt with the actions of government department charged with the care of vulnerable children – TVNZ not required to detail nature of more serious allegations – not required to give further information about CYFS’ standard processes – item omitted critical information about evidential interviews of children – left viewers without a clear understanding of the reasons behind CYFS’ actions – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – all were dissatisfied with Strata Title Administration Limited and its director Michael Chapman-Smith – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Mr Chapman-Smith had agreed to an interview and then changed his mind – other statements not inaccurate – one aspect upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overall item was fair – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 13 October 2004 examined complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – Tuscany Towers, Ponsonby Crest, Waterford Apartments and Garden Grove....

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion about New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup – caller suggested host was overly critical of the team – host’s response – abusive – unfair – sexist FindingsPrinciple 1 – subsumed Principle 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7, Guideline 7a – threshold not reached – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The New Zealand cricket team’s performance at the World Cup was discussed on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 15 March 2003 hosted by Doug Golightly. One woman caller suggested to the host that he was overly critical of the team. The host advised the caller to return to domestic duties....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – use of archive footage of haka during item about foreshore and seabed dispute – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – use of footage not misleading or inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – use not unfair to any person or group – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Archive footage of a haka performed at Waitangi beach was used in a Holmes item about the dispute over ownership of the foreshore and seabed. The programme was broadcast on 19 August 2003 at 7. 00pm on TV One. [2] Wiremu Te Rauna Williams complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the archive footage was inaccurate and amounted to “fraud and betrayal”, as it had no connection to the seabed and foreshore debate....

ComplaintIt’s Your Money – item on two men looking for love – criticism of The Company Company Ltd, which provides organised singles events – unfair, unbalanced, inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – programme not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – Company able to respond on the programme to criticisms made – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The episode of It’s Your Money which screened on TV2 at 8pm on 12 February 2001 was sub-titled "Looking for Love". The programme looked at the experiences of two men, each of whom had spent time and money trying to find a female partner. The programme examined the various options open to the men, such as dating agencies, internet dating, and event organisers, and explored whether clients of these organisations were getting value for money....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Tonight – item reported on deaths of two people involved in a police pursuit – stated that 10 people in 2010 had died “as a result of patrol car pursuits” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state that police were responsible for the deaths – viewers would have understood the meaning of the reporter’s statement – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was straightforward news report – no judgement was made about the actions of the police involved in the pursuits – not unfair to the police – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – four items reporting special investigation into Ministry of Social Development’s “Community Max” projects questioned how millions of dollars had been spent – reporter visited sites of six projects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on the issue within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – very small number of minor points had the potential to be misleading – however in the context of four items which legitimately questioned government spending upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – MSD should expect that as a government Ministry it is subject to scrutiny…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-011:Sugrue and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-011 PDF551. 41 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Overnight Talk on Newstalk ZB, the complainant had a conversation with the host about greyhound racing in which he defended the activity and the use of live bait. The host responded that the complainant was ‘pathetic’ and ‘a very sick person’, among other things. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the host had offended the complainant on the basis of his Australian Aboriginal culture. The host’s comments to the complainant had no relation to his culture, and were not otherwise unfair. The comments were typical of the robust and opinionated nature of talkback radio, where callers can reasonably expect hosts to disagree with their views, sometimes in a strong and confrontational manner....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment on The Project, in which host (and comedian) Jeremy Corbett compared the time then National Party Leader Todd Muller and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent thinking before responding to a question about whether US President Donald Trump is racist. The complaint was that the segment breached broadcasting standards by implying Mr Muller ‘failed’ by answering the question too soon and by comparing Mr Trudeau with Mr Muller rather than Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. The segment was clearly intended to be comical rather than a serious political commentary. In that context it would not have misled viewers and did not trigger the requirements of the balance standard. Nor was the item unfair to Mr Muller who, as then Leader of the Opposition, could reasonably expect to be the subject of media coverage and commentary, including satirical commentary....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on The Detail that discussed Auckland Council efforts to monitor and improve the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches. The complaint was that the item failed to present alternative views, or test or challenge the views presented by Auckland Council representatives. The Authority noted the balance standard allows for significant viewpoints to be presented over time, and does not require every programme to canvass all significant views on a particular topic. It found there was extensive coverage around the time of the broadcast that provided a range of information on the water quality and swimmability of Auckland beaches, and the broadcast approached the issue from a particular perspective, not purporting to be a balanced examination of the adequacy of Auckland Council efforts. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has upheld part of a complaint about satirical comedy series, James Must-a-pic His Mum a Man, finding it was unfair to the complainant, James Mustapic’s father, and action taken by the broadcaster (having upheld two aspects of the fairness complaint) was not sufficient to remedy potential harm to the complainant. Comments were made throughout the series which the Authority found created a negative impression of James’ father and had the potential to adversely affect him and his reputation – meaning the broadcaster should, in the interests of fairness, have informed him of the nature of the programme and his participation prior to broadcast....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards about an interviewee saying, on Midday Report, Foreign Affairs Minister Rt Hon Winston Peters was ‘touching himself instead of doing a real job of caring for New Zealanders in difficulty’. Noting the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher for politicians and public figures, the Authority found the brief comment would not have left listeners with an unfairly negative impression of Peters. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...