Search Rapua

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

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, unfair and denigratoryFindingsPreliminary findings – Authority applied TVNZ v VoTE approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Authority must consider whether finding a breach of standards would impose unreasonable limitation on free speech Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors favour broadcaster – public interest does not require finding a breach of standards simply because broadcasts lampooned Catholicism – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high threshold in light of protection given to satire in 6(g)(iii) – threshold one of vitriol or hate speech – fact that offence caused of itself insufficient to find breach of standard – programmes not realistic as complainant alleged – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – satirical programmes would only be unfair in…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on saving fuel costs – contained a number statements about hybrid cars, including the following comment which referred to the Toyota Prius, “The bottom line is that the British Consumer’s Institute just did a comparison between a diesel car and a hybrid car and found that the diesel car was in fact more efficient....

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”....

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Probation Services Manager – conduct of the interviewer – biased – unfair Findings Standards 4 and 6 – live interview – not unbalanced – interviewee presented viewpoint – dealt with fairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with the Manager of the Probation Service was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 13 February 2003. The interview centred around the release of a report by the Probation Service regarding its management of an offender while on parole. [2] John Blackaby complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and that the interviewee had been dealt with unfairly, because of the "bully-boy" conduct of the presenter....

ComplaintRadio Sport – talkback discussion of South Africa & New Zealand one day cricket match – callers’ questions about match-fixing and bonus point – host terminated one call apparently from an Asian with reference to match-fixing in the sub-continent – another call terminated with sarcasm – unfair – racist FindingsPrinciple 5 – sports talkback is robust – no uphold Principle 7 – opinion not racial slur – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The result of the previous evening’s one day cricket match between New Zealand and South Africa was one of the topics on Doug Out, a talkback session broadcast on Radio Sport on Saturday morning 2 February 2002 hosted by Doug Golightly. One caller questioned whether the result was fixed, and another asked whether South Africa had earned a bonus point....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on likely ban of guided heli-hunting on conservation land – contained file footage of commercial deer recovery – footage allegedly inaccurate, misleading and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – footage of commercial hunting would have misled viewers to believe that it applied directly to the story – footage should have been explained to ensure that viewers understood it related to commercial hunting which is a completely different industry to heli-hunting – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item did not mislead – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – commercial hunting industry was not an “organisation” for the purposes of the standard – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Mary Anne Shanahan declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Radio Tarana News reported on District Court proceedings involving the complainant, a former Fiji government minister, regarding a dispute over rent allegedly owed to the landlord of a building he leased. The Authority did not uphold his complaint that the item was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. The item was a straightforward, brief news report, and the complainant’s position was fairly included in the item. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] An item on Radio Tarana News reported on District Court proceedings involving the complainant, Rajesh Singh, a former Fiji government minister, regarding a dispute over rent allegedly owed to the landlord of a building he leased....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Saturday Morning featured an interview with a filmmaker about his recent documentary Going Clear about the Church of Scientology. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the interview was unbalanced, unfair and biased against the Church. The focus of the interview was the filmmaker's perspective and his experience making the film; it did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required a balancing viewpoint to be presented. The nature of the programme was such that the broadcaster was not required in the interests of fairness to inform the Church prior to broadcast or invite its comment in response....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an item on Morning Report discussing the possible boycott of the Tuia – Encounters 250 commemorations was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. The Authority found the item was balanced through the presentation of alternative perspectives and the existence of significant media coverage within the period of current interest. The Authority also found the broadcast did not contain any material inaccuracy with respect to Captain Cook’s first arrival in New Zealand. Finally, the Authority found the fairness standard did not apply as the complainant did not identify any person or organisation who took part in or was referred to in the broadcast who was treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint regarding the question ‘How can anyone trust anything that you say? ’ put to Dr Ashley Bloomfield, Director-General of Health, following the positive tests of two women who were released from managed isolation on compassionate grounds. Dr Bloomfield’s answers to the question (which was posed twice) were shown on-air. Viewers would not have been left with an unduly negative impression of him. As a public health official he is reasonably subject to robust scrutiny, especially during a pandemic. The fairness standard was accordingly not breached and the remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a segment on 7 Days was unfair to a singer who performed the New Zealand national anthem ahead of an All Blacks game in San Diego. The complainants said the broadcast was unfair to the performer and unbalanced, noting she was accused of ‘butchering’ the anthem and called ‘Dunedin’s most well-known murderer’. The Authority found the programme was not unfair, noting: viewers were unlikely to interpret the programme as suggesting the performer was an actual murderer or criminal; having chosen to perform at such an event, she could reasonably expect comment on her performance; viewers would not have been left with an unfairly negative impression of the performer; comments were directed at the performance rather than the performer personally; and that comedy and satire are valuable forms of expression. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item reporting on Te Pāti Māori’s ‘reset’, the co-leaders’ reaction to questioning at a media conference, and Te Pāti Māori’s newest MP Oriini Kaipara’s maiden speech in Parliament. The complaints alleged the segment was unbalanced and biased as the broadcast did not report on the temporary suspension of Parliament following haka and waiata after Kaipara’s maiden speech. The Authority found the segment was a straight news report and not a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, meaning the balance standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News item, reporting on developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, breached the accuracy, balance and fairness standards. The item discussed an increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state due to Israel’s continuing military action in Gaza, and the possibility of New Zealand following suit. The complainant considered the report cast Israel in a negative light, contained numerous inaccuracies (largely in relation to its description of the geographical situation in the conflict zone), and omitted important information from an Israeli perspective. The Authority found no material inaccuracies or misleading omissions in the report. It found the balance standard was not breached as significant alternative perspectives on the issue were presented, including that of Israel; and the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage. The fairness standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that allowing an interviewee to wear what appeared to be a keffiyeh during an interview about the government’s introduction of new ‘move-on’ orders breached the offensive and disturbing content, discrimination and denigration, balance, and fairness standards. The Authority found broadcasting the interviewee wearing this garment would not have caused widespread disproportionate offence or distress, or have had the effect of encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, Jewish people. It noted, if the garment was in fact a keffiyeh, the keffiyeh is not an anti-Semitic symbol, nor is showing support for Palestinians anti-Semitic. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Fairness...