Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-160 Dated the 21st day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SIEGFRIED BAUER of Raetihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six cafés in Auckland – stated that food sample from Café Cézanne had tested positive for faecal coliforms which “could make you very sick” – sample had been incorrectly labelled and it was later discovered that it did not come from Café Cézanne – in the meantime broadcaster broadcast an apology (in following episode) that did not exclude possibility that sample came from Café Cézanne – both programmes allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – serious allegation that Café Cézanne’s food was contaminated with faecal coliforms was broadcast without verifying or checking results – sample did not come from Café Cézanne – apology was also inaccurate and inadequate to rectify the breach – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not give the complainants a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond because they were not…...

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – "Return to Sender" – item about the return to Sri Lanka of a 16-year-old woman who was deported despite claims that she had been sexually abused by family members to whom she was returning – included footage shot in Sri Lanka with members of the young woman's family and included comments about the sexual abuse of children in Sri Lanka – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with law and order and breached young woman's privacy – item allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – no New Zealand law in dispute – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (vii) – consent form signed by grandmother on young woman's behalf – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – item discussed two controversial issues – (1) specific deportation and dangers for young woman –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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 an RNZ news bulletin. The item briefly reported on the BBC’s apology concerning a live broadcast of music group Bob Vylan chanting ‘death, death to the IDF’, saying the apology described the chants as ‘antisemitic’. The complainant said the use of ‘antisemitic’ to describe the chants was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. Noting the statement was clearly attributed to the BBC and the context behind its statement was available to the audience, the Authority found the audience had the information needed to draw their own inferences and conclusions and would not be misled. The balance and fairness standards did not apply or were not breached.    Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Investigator Special: The Case Against Robin Bain – documentary maker Bryan Bruce gave his perspective on the case against Robin Bain, by re-examining the evidence against Robin given at David Bain’s retrial – concluded that there was no forensic evidence connecting Robin with the murders – also investigated whether the complainant, who was a “surprise” witness at the retrial, had given misleading evidence – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond to the issues raised about his testimony – unfair – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – alleged inaccuracies relate to implication in the programme that the complainant gave misleading evidence – Authority not in a position to determine whether the programme was inaccurate in this respect – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

ComplaintNews item about community parties on New Year’s Eve – complainant named and said to be "spouting lies" and "hadn’t checked the facts" – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 and Principle 6 – subsumed under Principle 5 Principle 5 – any response, including decline to comment, not reported – unfair – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The possibility of three venues for New Year’s Eve party-goers in Central Otago was dealt with in a news item broadcast at 6. 30am, 7. 30am, 8. 30am and midday on 21 March 2003 on Blues Skies FM in Alexandra. The Chairman of one group which had staged a successful street party for five years, expressed his anger at one of the other groups. Naming the other group’s chair, he said that she had not checked the facts and was "spouting" lies....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the life and death of Jesus – consulted various experts – challenged traditional Christian view as encapsulated in the gospels – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – issues canvassed in the programme were matters of historical interest as opposed to controversial issues of public importance – authorial documentary approached from perspective of Mr Bruce – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the commonly accepted view of the gospels – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the programme consisted of Mr Bruce’s comment and opinion based on his personal research – viewers would not have been misled – given subject matter of documentary the Authority is not…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on verdict in Ewen McDonald murder trial – reporter commented, “You could well be thinking, if he’s not guilty, why hasn’t he walked out these doors behind me and spoken to media?...

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 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....

ComplaintRadio Tarana – Saheri Programme – comments made about presenter of another programme broadcast by Radio Tarana – Aaj Juma Hai – comments unfair and derogatory FindingsPrinciple 5 – no tape available – decline to determine Principle 7 – no tape available – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A difference in religious observance as to whether, after a Muslim person dies, dates and times needed to be fixed for making supplications was aired on programmes broadcast on Radio Tarana in November 2002. On the Saheri programme, a Muslim priest stated that dates and times did not need to be fixed. The contrary view was advanced on the Aaj Juma Hai programme broadcast on 15 November, sponsored by the New Zealand Milad Committee and presented by Mr Mujeeb Sayed Hydrabadi....

ComplaintMore FM – radio competition – disclosure of work-place – unfair – breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (v) – complainant’s work-place private information – uphold – apology to complainant sufficientPrinciple 5 – broadcaster upheld complaint – action taken sufficientNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] On 10 May 2002, B entered a radio competition on More FM in Dunedin. B’s work-place details were broadcast, after he had specifically stated that he did not want his work-place disclosed on-air. [2] B complained to More FM, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached his privacy and was a "blatant and deceitful" breach of the requirement that broadcasters deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a broadcast. He also complained directly to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the same broadcast had breached his privacy....