Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday and One News – reported on a police drugs bust involving former Australian swimmer Scott Miller – Charlotte Dawson mentioned as being his ex-wife – one item included wedding photos of Ms Dawson and Mr Miller – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – items were accurate on points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Ms Dawson was treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint Radio Sport – host Doug Golightly told caller, “For Christ’s sake, piss off” – offensive – unfair Findings Principle 1 – context – not upheld Principle 5 – comment directed at caller – bad tempered – verging on breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] During a talkback session on Radio Sport on 13 December 2003, at about 10. 00am, the host Doug Golightly said to a caller, “For Christ’s sake, piss off”. [2] Chris Baker complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster, that the language was offensive and the comment was unfair. [3] In response, TRN declined to uphold the complaint. It considered the attitude apparent and the language contained in the item were acceptable in the robust style of talk show hosted by Mr Golightly....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Five Campbell Live items featured the complainant, Margaret Harkema, a former director of the Valley Animal Research Centre, and investigated concerns that she was using TradeMe to rehome beagles that were bred or used for testing. The Authority upheld her complaints that the programmes were unfair, misleading and breached her privacy. Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, PrivacyNot Upheld: Law and OrderOrders: Section 13(1)(d) $2,000 compensation to the complainant for breach of privacy; Section 16(1) $12,000 legal costs to the complainantIntroduction[1] Campbell Live carried out an investigation, spanning five separate broadcasts, into matters involving the now closed Valley Animal Research Centre (VARC), and its former director, Margaret Harkema....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on The Paul Henry Show featured a recent Police press release about a so-called tourist who had reportedly been driving with a kayak attached width-ways to the roof of his car. The presenter commented that the man was ‘a bloody twat’ and that his actions ‘pissed him off’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint about the presenter’s choice of language and his denigration of foreign tourists. In the context of a late-night programme and the presenter’s well-known style, the language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency and ‘foreign tourists’ are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on water leak in West Auckland – stated that Watercare had failed to respond to complaints about water leak – interviewed representative from Watercare – showed person drinking water which had come from storm-water drain – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created impression that complaints made to Watercare and that Watercare failed to respond to complaints – Watercare and council separate organisations – item inaccurate and misleading – however, in light of factual background, broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure item accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Watercare invited to appear on Close Up with regard to complaint made 6 November – Watercare given sufficient opportunity to check records given nature of allegations made against it – not upheld…...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on a disagreement between two individuals about their input into a Rugby World Cup statue – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a balanced and straightforward news report – neither party presented as more credible or worthy than the other – included comment from both parties – no evidence to suggest interview footage unfairly edited – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a straightforward news report – broadcaster was not required to explain the complainant’s position in more detail – viewers would not have been misled – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – complainant’s concerns relate to issues of copyright – Authority cannot assume the role of a court – standard not applicable…...

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....

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – follow-up item on the use of sow crates in the pig farming industry – interviewed woman planning a whistle-blowing campaign offering rewards to farm workers for exposing cruel farming practices, and CEO of the New Zealand Pork Industry Board – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence that interview with New Zealand Pork Industry Board CEO was unfairly edited – as industry advocate he should expect robust questioning on these issues – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – talkback – topic – global warming – complainant tried to contribute – described as idiot – named as Brian – call terminated Findings Principle 3 – identity not revealed – no uphold Principle 4 – insufficient information – decline to determine Principle 5 – opportunity to terminate call without rudeness not taken – broadcaster irresponsible and abusive – uphold – no Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Global warning was a topic discussed on talkback on Newstalk ZB, hosted by Leighton Smith, on the morning of 16 July 2001. At about 11. 12am, the complainant telephoned, gave his name as "Jim", and challenged the views advanced by a professor who had been interviewed, and who had disputed the global warming theory....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-115:Tawhai and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-115 PDF300. 14 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-018:Shaw and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-018 PDF591. 45 KB...

The University of Otago (the University) complained that three broadcasts by TVNZ, about sexual assault allegations by former and current students of the University, breached the fairness, balance and accuracy standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The complaint about Sunday was not upheld, but aspects of the complaint about Breakfast and 1 News were upheld. Overall, the Sunday programme was balanced, as it included comment from the University and was clearly signalled as coming from the perspective of the women interviewed. No material inaccuracies were identified, and the University was given a reasonable opportunity to respond. However, the Breakfast and 1 News items focussed more specifically on perceived shortcomings of the University and its decision not to be interviewed, resulting in unfairness to the University. The Authority also found that the Breakfast programme lacked balance....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about comments by Sean Plunket on his talkback programme regarding Christians and Christianity. While Mr Plunket made highly critical comments and expressed scepticism, this was not beyond audience expectations for a robust, opinionated programme and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Equally, the comments were unlikely to encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians. The Authority found callers in to the programme were treated fairly by Mr Plunket, given they had willingly phoned in to provide views on a discussion in which Mr Plunket was criticising the Christian faith, and were given the opportunity to express their own views. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness, Violence, Accuracy, Balance...

Following an interview with a COVID-19 vaccine advocate on the AM Show, the host noted Medsafe gave the vaccine the ‘same approval as everyday medicines like Panadol and Nurofen’. The complaint stated this was misleading and in breach of five standards, including the accuracy standard. The Authority did not uphold the complaint as the accuracy standard is concerned with material inaccuracy. To the extent there was any inaccuracy, it was unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the programme. The Authority considered the other standards raised either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Balance, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-182 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...