Search Rapua

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold – no order AppealConsent order – appropriateness of no order(s) being imposed remitted back to the Authority Findings on ReconsiderationNo order appropriate This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint– item allegedly contained comments from Radio New Zealand’s economics reporter – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – broadcaster unable to locate any segment which matches the comments identified by the complainant – Authority therefore unable to assess broadcasting standards against those comments – Authority declines to determine the complaint in all the circumstances under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Allan Golden made a formal complaint to Radio New Zealand Ltd (RNZ) about a news item broadcast between 4pm and 5. 30pm on 11 July 2012....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – reported on bullying incident at Ruawai College, told from the perspective of the victim’s mother – victim’s mother expressed frustration at the school because she was not informed of the incident until a couple of days after it occurred – contained repeated footage of the incident – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not create an unfairly negative impression of the school and staff members – school was provided with fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and the Principal adequately presented the school’s position – item did not create an unfair impression about the timing or duration of the incident – reference to letter was not unfair – footage of police was due to an oversight – school and staff members treated fairly and overall…...

ComplaintHolmes – item about eviction of tenants behind in payments – distressing situation – complaint that broadcaster failed to show discretion and sensitivity FindingsStandard 6 and Guidelines 6b and 6e – breach occurs when Standard contravened, not Guideline – Guideline 6f also relevant to decision on Standard 6 – tenants not dealt with fairly – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The eviction of tenants who had fallen behind in a rent-to-buy agreement was shown in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2003. The landlady explained that she had taken the action to protect her investment. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it had not shown discretion and sensitivity in a distressing situation in which there was no apparent public interest....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 3rd Degree reported on a Korean man X who was ousted from his local church community for his participation in a ‘mockumentary’ about North Korea. The programme included an interview with the editor of a local Korean newspaper (one of the complainants), and attempted to interview a priest from X’s church. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the story was unfair to the interviewees and breached the newspaper editor’s privacy. The programme made genuine attempts to obtain comment from the interviewees, and they were treated fairly. The newspaper editor agreed to an interview so the broadcast did not disclose any private facts about him. The story did not discuss a controversial issue which required the presentation of alternative views; it focused on one man’s personal experiences....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

ComplaintThe Tribe – teen drama series – violence – unsuitable viewing material for children Findings Standards 4, 5 & 6 – not relevant – decline to determine Standard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 2 – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for teenage audience – no uphold Standard 10 – violence ritualistic and symbolic – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An episode of The Tribe, a "futuristic teen drama" was broadcast on TV3 on Sunday 14 July 2002 at 9. 50am. [2] Francis Fielding complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained violence and was inappropriate viewing material for children. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr Fielding referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintOne News – complainant victim of rape and attempted murder in the United States – alleged offender arrested after 20 years because of DNA evidence – news item showed photo of complainant at time of offence – breach of privacy – community standards not maintained – item caused unnecessary distress – item involved unnecessary intrusion into grief of the complainant and her family FindingsPrivacy – complainant not identified – no uphold Standard G2 – images not breach of community standards in context Standard G16 – issues better addressed under G17 Standard G17 – intrusion into grief took place – but valid news item and item did not include gratuitous detail – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The complainant, a New Zealand woman, was the victim of a rape and other serious violent offences in the United States....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – talkback – reference to named Judge "jerking off at work" – bad taste – unbalanced – anti-male FindingsPrinciple 1 – robust environment – no uphold Principle 5 – reference to named Judge unfair – majority – uphold Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – neither men nor judges denigrated – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A High Court Judge who had viewed pornography on the Internet while at work was the subject of a talkback discussion on Newstalk ZB on 19 February 2002 at around 10. 00pm. During the broadcast, the host made a reference to the Judge "jerking off at work". [2] Dennis Pahl complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster of Newstalk ZB, that the reference was anti-male, defamatory, in poor taste and showed a "demonstrable lack of balance" in the show....

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, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme informationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed about an identifiable person – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – 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 upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – update on a previous item about a used Ferrari – item reported that Continental Car Services Ltd had “refused to hand over” a statement of compliance for the vehicle – item implied that CCS was engaging in restrictive trade practices – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – TVNZ upheld two points as inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained several inaccurate and misleading statements – item as a whole was also inaccurate – action taken by TVNZ insufficient – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to CCS and Mr Pitt – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,283. 00 Payment of costs to the Crown $2500. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six taxi companies in Auckland – noted that driver of Green Cab had looked down at something six times during the journey – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster was entitled to edit footage – unclear what the driver was looking at – Target legitimately commented that he demonstrated lapses in concentration and took his eyes off the road – programme broadcast fair reflection of Green Cabs’ response – not unfair – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – concerns better dealt with under fairness – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item investigated claims that truck drivers were working hours in excess of the legal maximum, and that some were using drugs to stay awake – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – reasonable opportunities given to present significant points of view – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Friedlander of the Road Transport Forum NZ – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item called “High Way” on 60 Minutes broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 20 June 2005 investigated claims that truck drivers were working hours in excess of the legal maximum, and that some were using drugs to stay awake....

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....

Complaint20/20 – statement broadcast about a complaint upheld by the Authority – inaccurate – misleading – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – statement broadcast accurate – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair – complainant did not take part nor referred to – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] TV3 was ordered to broadcast a statement about a complaint that had been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. The statement was broadcast on TV3 at the end of a 20/20 programme at approximately 8. 30pm on 30 March 2003. [2] Mark Scott complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the statement broadcast was inaccurate, misleading and unfair. As the producer of the item to which the statement related, he argued that the statement was incorrect because he had evidence to the contrary....

Complaint3 News – item about New Zealand First party convention – Winston Peters described as having "once again played the race card" – inaccurate – unjust and unfair – item lacked balance and impartiality FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate to state Mr Peters played the "race card" – no uphold Standard G3 – item acknowledged right of Mr Peters and his supporters to express their opinions – no uphold Standard G4 – Mr Peters not dealt with unjustly or unfairly – no uphold Standard G6 – item not lacking in balance, impartiality or fairness – no uphold Standard G7 – no deceptive programming practice – decline to determine Standard G13 – no uphold Standard G14 – no uphold Standard G19 – editing did not distort views – no uphold Standard G20 – views fairly presented – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision....