Search

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintJason Lewis complained that an episode of Coastwatch breached his privacy and was unfair. The item showed him being issued with a $250 fine for having five undersized paua in his catch, two years after he was filmed. The complainant said he had not known he was being filmed for television, and that showing the incident two years after it happened was unfair, particularly as the fine had been waived a week after it was issued. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said the programme had not broadcast any private facts about the complainant, who had been filmed in a public place. Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police College – reality series following new police recruits – showed man being ejected from Westpac Stadium – man was seen resisting attempts to remove him and shouting abuse at police – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle (ii) – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6b only applies to planned appearances – Mr Walden unnecessarily identified under guideline 6f, but overall treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Police College was a reality series which traced the progress of cadets through the Police College. In an episode broadcast on TV2 at 10....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed former SIS agent about its operation in the 1970s involving Dr William Sutch and representatives of the Soviet Embassy – former agent said that Dr Sutch had been a spy for 30 years – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance – standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements clearly expressions of former agent’s opinion – not facts – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no unfairness to members of Dr Sutch’s family – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Kit Bennetts, a former SIS agent who had obtained High Court approval to publish a book covering aspects of his work, was interviewed on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

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 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion about the use of mobile devices in Parliament – brief interview with Act Party leader Rodney Hide – Mr Hide alleged he was treated unfairly in the preparation of the programme – said the reporter had obtained information through misrepresentation and deception – allegedly unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – alleged unfairness in preparation of programme not reflected in what was broadcast – programme not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Agenda, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 8 April 2006, discussed the use of mobile devices in Parliament. It noted that Standing Orders did not allow the use of mobile devices and laptops during Question Time....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed fashion designers Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper, who were involved in a High Court case about their branding – reported that Tamsin Cooper's silk velvet coats, labelled as 100% silk, had been tested and the fabric was “not 100% silk, but mostly viscose” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Tamsin Cooper – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on 3 December 2007 at 7. 30pm on TV One, discussed a High Court action involving fashion designers Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about an illegal advertising campaign for Goji Juice – product was being marketed to the Tongan community as being a cure for numerous diseases – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – controversial issue was the marketing of Goji Juice – broadcaster not required to seek comment from manufacturer or from people who endorsed the product – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not exhaust every alternative legitimate way of obtaining Namoe Sau’s comment before arranging door-stepping interview (guideline 6b) – used deception to obtain her comment without making sufficient attempts to obtain the material by other means (guideline 6c) – broadcaster treated Ms Sau unfairly – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm…...

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. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA teenager who was reported in a 3 News item as “believed” to have died in a Christchurch house fire (which killed her father, her father’s wife, her grandmother and a boarder), complained that the item was inaccurate, and had “shocked, upset and angered” many of those who knew her. She claimed the item was also unfair, and breached her father’s privacy as well as her own. The Broadcaster’s ResponseCanWest argued that the item was accurate because the report said the identities of the four dead were “believed to be 58-year-old Japanese immigrant Junichi Tomonaga and his wife, his teenage daughter and his mother or mother-in-law”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – item on a man named Paul Cleave and his attempts to get his camera repaired – item explained that Mr Cleave had received a loan camera from the retailer – Mr Cleave was shown stating that he was not going to return the loan camera – the presenter made a number of comments about him taking the loan camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, balance and fairness standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – the Authority received conflicting evidence on two statements complained about and declined to determine them – the other three statements complained about were accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a fair representation of Mr Cleave’s conduct – item’s change in focus was prompted by Mr Cleave’s own behaviour – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Mr Cleave signed a consent form allowing…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item looked at a New Zealand based animal research testing facility – included interviews with people who were pro-animal use and people who were anti-animal use – included discussions on the type of animals being used, whether animal testing was necessary, alternatives and research facilities – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – to the extent that the item touched on a controversial issue of public importance it provided an adequate overview of significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no misleading or inaccurate statements – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – participants were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Live talkback – complainant strongly criticised the host’s approach in an interview with Georgina te Heuheu MP – after some two minutes of uninterrupted comment, the host cut off caller and, while declining to identify her, said that she had her own agendas and that she shouldn’t ring because it wasn’t appropriate for her to call talkback – broadcaster’s approach allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 4 (balance) – complainant’s criticism of host and host’s criticism of complainant were not controversial issues of public importance - standard does not apply – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – host’s critical response to experienced caller’s criticisms in robust talkback environment not unfair – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – standard does not apply as exchange was neither news nor current affairs – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintDocumentary New Zealand: "Finding Family" – violent family relationship described by woman victim – inaccurate – unfair – unbalanced – discriminated against men FindingsProgramme about family reunification, not spousal abuseStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – no uphold Standard G6 – no uphold Standard G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The theme of Documentary New Zealand: "Finding Family", broadcast on TV One on 31 July 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, was the reunification of family members who had been separated. One woman described how she had become separated from her son when she escaped from a violent relationship some 30 years previously. He was tracked down by the Salvation Army in Australia....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SPECTRUM of Nelson Broadcaster BAYS TELEVISION LIMITED of Nelson J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-076 Decision No: 1998-077 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALICE HALLIWELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-104 Dated the 10th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CANTERBURY HEALTH LIMITED of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...