Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South Park – picture of a statue of Jesus Christ – voice said “Look at me, I’m Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you Mr Bush?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reference to the “Labour Government” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme informationFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – “Labour-led” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld – majority considers “Labour” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld Standard 5 (fairness) – no issue of fairness arises – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast an item on Close Up on 21 July 2005 at 7pm. During the course of a political interview, the presenter used the term “Labour Government” to refer to the Government. Complaint [2] Vivienne Shepherd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the term “Labour Government” was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme information. She noted that the government was made up of a Labour-Progressive Coalition....

Complaint3 News Special – interviews with Nicky Hager and Prime Minister about issues raised in Hager’s book "Seeds of Distrust" – complaints that implication in interview that the book was factually correct was unbalanced and partial – some facts inaccurate – different interview styles unfair – Authority made the following findings: Standard 4 – issues were scientific and government accountability – science aspect – balanced – no uphold; government accountability – not balanced – uphold Standard 5 – scientific facts in dispute – unable to determine; approach to interview with Prime Minister in comparison with the interview with Mr Hager neither impartial nor objective – uphold; statement that Prime Minister declined her earlier offer to do another interview not inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 – preparation of programme fair – no uphold; presentation of programme – unfair as Prime Minister not advised of source of allegations and the accuser was interviewed in…...

ComplaintAssignment – documentary about child abuse – archival footage of Heperi family used – permission not sought – unfair – breach of privacy FindingsStandard G4 – disturbing and upsetting, but not unfair – no suggestion of link to child abuse – use of footage ethically questionable – broadcasters to take special care – no uphold Privacy – deceased person not an "individual" within meaning of the Act – other family members do not meet identification threshold – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A documentary on TV One’s Assignment programme, broadcast on 2 November 2000 at 8. 30pm, endeavoured to identify the root causes of child abuse and violence in the Maori community....

ComplaintTarget – preparation and presentation of programme unfair - florists tested – test conducted unfairly – assessor not independent or impartial – response unfairly edited FindingsStandard G4 – test and setting up process not unfair – other standards not relevant – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 on 28 November 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm featured six florists who were graded on their ability to complete an order. Ms Newcombe and Mr Hall complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast had portrayed their business unfairly. They alleged that a number of broadcasting standards had been breached both by the broadcast and the preparation of the programme. TV3 responded that the test had been devised on the advice of an independent technical consultant and that the florists had been selected randomly....

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic – included disputed claims about couple's dealings with mechanic – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item created negative impression of the complainant but he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item – complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – claims presented as couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not points of fact (guideline 5a) – viewers would have understood that claims were one side of the story and were disputed by the complainant so they would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryAccording to host John Banks, in his programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 31 July 1998 between 6. 00-9. 00am, New Zealand needed allies like the Americans to protect it from enemies like Japan. Other similar references were made to Japan and its people. Mrs Knight complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the remarks should not have been broadcast. In her view, the only purpose of the comments was to engender negative feelings among New Zealanders about Japan. She considered they were personal views, which Mr Banks should have kept to himself. Mrs Knight asked for an explanation and apology. In its response, Radio Pacific emphasised that talkback was a forum in which a variety of views could be expressed, even those which were contentious and provocative. It suggested that those who objected to Mr Banks’ views should phone and have their say on air....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item interviewed aid worker Nicola Enchmarch about being caught up in an Israeli commando raid on a flotilla off Gaza in which nine activists died – chief Israeli spokesperson interviewed about the raid – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – topic of the raid was a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts and gave reasonable opportunities to present significant points of view on the raid – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – material that was not included did not make the item misleading – complainant did not identify any material points of fact he considered to be inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Israeli spokesperson given ample opportunity to present Israel’s point of view – individuals and organisations taking part or referred to…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported that a 40-year-old man had been accused of knowingly infecting people with HIV – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – identifiable to limited group of people who had seen the website or the photos – allegation of criminal behaviour not a private fact – HIV-positive status normally a private fact but public interest defence applied – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high level of public interest especially in alerting those who could identify the man – guideline relating to discrimination and denigration not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast at 7pm on TV One on 15 May 2009, was introduced as follows: What kind of person knowingly infects lovers with the HIV virus?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported one woman’s experience with receiving poor quality healthcare from The Palms Medical Centre in Palmerston North – Health and Disability Commissioner upheld her complaint about the centre – item named and showed footage from a previous item of one of the doctors involved – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – medical centre was told that Kay Shirkey was being interviewed about her experience at The Palms and that the story would be critical of the centre – Dr Saxe was her primary doctor – reporters asked several times to interview someone at the centre – not unfair – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about Dr Saxe – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on Ms Shirkey’s experience with The Palms – no discussion…...

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported that Plunketline telephone service to be replaced by broader Healthline service – Minister of Health questioned on whether her support for Healthline was consistent with election pledge in 1999 to support Plunketline – allegedly unbalanced and interview edited unfairly Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item omitted Minister’s explanation for the change of her political point of view – unbalanced – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item omitted Minister’s comment on central issue – unfair – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The replacement of Plunketline, a telephone service for caregivers, with a broader Healthline telephone service was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One on 7 July 2004....

ComplaintOff the Wire – radio comedy - comment that fat people are greedy and smelly – unfair – bad taste – encourages negative stereotypes FindingsPrinciple 1 – context – no uphold Principle 5 – not news or current affairs – not applicablePrinciple 6 – specific person not referred to – no upholdPrinciple 7 Guideline 7a – satirical exception to encouraging denigration – no uphold – Guideline 7b – not children’s normally accepted listening time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Off the Wire, a radio comedy, was broadcast on National Radio at about 9. 05pm on Friday 1 November 2002, and repeated at 1. 30pm the next day. In dealing with a news item about a doctor being sacked from an overseas hospital, a participant had stated that "fat people are greedy and smelly – don’t trust them"....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – breach of privacy – using the airwaves to ridicule and denigrate – unfair – unjust Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) s. 4(1)(c) – privacy – no identification – no uphold (3) Principle 5 – 6 December broadcast – no uphold11 December broadcast (6. 19am) – threatening and intimidatory – uphold11 December broadcast (8. 35am) – suggesting someone has mental problems unfair – uphold12 December broadcast (6. 22am) – no uphold12 December broadcast (6. 54am) – no uphold13 December broadcast – abusive and threatening – uphold20 December broadcast – no uphold7 January broadcast – no uphold Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $250 reimbursement of reasonable legal costs and expenses This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] R K Watkins complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert & Jono’s Drive Show – host told personal anecdote about a man with Down Syndrome who fell off a swing and hurt himself – story intended to be humorous – host used the term “mental” to refer to people with intellectual disabilities – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – story was conveyed in a light-hearted manner – the term “mental” in reference to people with intellectual disabilities was used without malice or invective – co-host made mitigating comments – host also made comments that were positive towards people with intellectual disabilities – not upheldStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments did not amount to hate speech or vitriol and the story was told without malice – did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against,…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989RNZ News – item reported on French and Greek elections – it was reported that “the polls have opened in Greece for parliamentary elections seen as a referendum on the country’s harsh austerity measures” – use of the word “harsh” allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsJurisdictional matter – on balance, complainant was entitled to refer his complaint on the basis he did not receive the broadcaster’s decision – Authority has jurisdiction to accept complaint Standard 4 (controversial issues) – use of the word “harsh” did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – use of the word “harsh” was not a material point of fact and would not have misled viewers – “harsh” not pejorative in this context but intended to mean strict or stringent – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...