Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussing possible organised crime involvement in the black market tobacco trade – interviewed tobacco growers – one interviewee stated that he was no longer growing tobacco, but aerial footage of his property showed that he was – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcast did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – broadcast did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard did not apply – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item inaccurate, but not significant in the context of the item overall – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the complainant or to another interviewee – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

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…...

The Authority upheld a complaint that a Checkpoint report summarising the complainant’s submission at a Waitematā local board public meeting was inaccurate and unfair to her. The item reported that ‘the sparks continued to fly when activist Lisa Prager described how she had claimed mana whenua status in her bid to save the trees [on Ōwairaka Mt Albert] but now regrets the move. [One] board member… refused to thank Ms Prager for her submission because, she said, her comments were “a bit racist”. ’ The Authority agreed with Ms Prager that the use of the word ‘regrets’ did not accurately reflect her view expressed at the meeting: “. . . I retire any claim to being mana whenua whatsoever. But I have no regrets in standing up and initiating the conversation. . ....

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....

Summary District Court Judge Martin Beattie was acquitted on 1 August 1997 on a number of dishonesty charges after a jury trial. It was a high-profile case. On 27 July 1998, a news item revealed the contents of a High Court ruling made before the trial in which the judge had ruled inadmissible a report prepared by a QC at the request of the Chief District Court Judge in the early stages of the investigation. The item reported that the judgment disclosed the QC’s opinion that Judge Beattie was guilty of fraud. Mr Clayton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the QC’s opinion about the judge’s behaviour was "utterly irrelevant", and the disclosure not only breached broadcasting standards, but also invaded Judge Beattie’s privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item mentioned Charlotte Dawson a number of times – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Decline to determine complaint under s. 11(a) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 on 8 November 2005 at 10pm contained a segment called “Save our Stars”, in which an actor went around the streets of Auckland collecting donations for various television presenters currently working for Prime Television. Correspondence [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the number of times Charlotte Dawson, a local celebrity, was mentioned in the programme. He argued that she had been referred to at least 11 times in the last 10 minutes of the episode, and submitted that Standards 4, 5 and 6 had been breached....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

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(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 1989Close Up – item followed up on three recent killings of Asian people – a Chinese woman stated in the item that she was carrying one thousand dollars in cash in her handbag and that it was part of Chinese culture to carry a lot of cash – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – clearly interviewee’s opinion – no suggestion that other interviews were suppressed – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interviews did not distort original events – item did not encourage discrimination – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintsHolmes – two items – sensitive information about two women found on second-hand computer hard drive – inaccuracies – unfair to ACC and to women – unbalanced – unnecessary intrusion into grief and distress of victims – significant errors of fact not corrected at earliest opportunity Findings (ACC complaint)(1) Standard G1 – inaccurate to refer to counsellor as part of ACC’s organisation – inaccurate to say women were referred to counsellor by ACC – uphold (2) Standard G4 – broadcasts unfairly framed ACC – uphold; breach in relation to the interviews with the women – uphold (3) Standard G6 and Standard G14 – selective editing of press release – items unbalanced – uphold Findings (MacDonald complaint)(1) Standard G4 – aspect upheld by broadcaster; breach in relation to the interviews with the women – uphold; broadcasts unfairly framed ACC – uphold (2) Standard G6 – item unbalanced – uphold Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $12,500 reimbursement of reasonable…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on Christchurch homeowners living in the government’s red zone with regard to their replacement insurance policies – interviewed Tower Insurance customer who had been advised that his replacement insurance would cover the cost of repairing his damaged house but not its full replacement value – visited Tower’s head office – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Campbell Live exhausted all legitimate methods to obtain comment from Tower – Mr Campbell’s approach polite and non-confrontational – door-stepping used as a means of obtaining information and constructive comment – not unfair to Tower or the receptionist – reference to email a fair summary of its contents – overall Tower treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

ComplaintFair Go – repairs to computer unsatisfactory and costly – inaccurate – unbalanced – misleading – breach of privacy. FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – no uphold Standards G6 – not applicable Standard G4 – use of secret microphone by protagonist – unfair – uphold Privacy principle (iii) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Fair Go on 15 November 2000 investigated a complaint from the owner of a computer about the extent and the cost of some repair work carried out by Auckland Computer Services. Fair Go is a consumer advocacy programme broadcast weekly at 7. 30pm on TV One. Steve Moodley, trading as Auckland Computer Services, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989High Country Rescue – profiled the attempted rescue of a tramper who died – made various references to the man’s “tramping party” and the “friends of the injured man” and showed brief footage of some of them with their faces blurred – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not “take part” in the programme and was not sufficiently “referred to” for the purposes of the fairness standard – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was not identifiable – no private facts disclosed – footage of the complainant was not broadcast and so no disclosure of information obtained through an intrusion with the complainant’s interest in seclusion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....