Search Rapua

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item introduced as “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” – about an undertaker whose practices were said to have offended some families – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – allegedly breached privacy of named undertakerFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (iii) – no intrusion in the nature of prying – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed not featured in complaint – complaint subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – partiality dealt with under fairness – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opportunities given to respond – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7. 00pm on 7 June 2005....

The Authority has not upheld complaints a segment on AM interviewing the SPCA’s Science Officer, Dr Alison Vaughan, breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. Dr Vaughan discussed the organisation’s desire to end commercial greyhound racing in New Zealand and invited viewers to contact the Minister of Racing to support that cause. The complainants considered the segment presented only one perspective on the issue and did not attempt to balance it with other perspectives. The Authority found the segment was clearly introduced as presenting a particular perspective, and other perspectives would have been known to viewers given the issue had long-standing interest in NZ. The segment was also materially accurate, or otherwise reflecting Dr Vaughan’s analysis, comment or opinion, to which the accuracy standard does not apply. The fairness standard did not apply as no organisation was referred to in the broadcast. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News, which reported on the Government’s intention to remove a benefit reduction sanction that can apply to sole beneficiary parents who do not name the remaining parent. The complainant alleged the item was unbalanced and misleading, as the report omitted details about the exemptions that can apply to the sanction, including that a parent will not have to name the other parent where the child or sole parent could be at risk of violence. The Authority found that the focus of this item was the Government’s desire to remove the sanction. The omission of details about the exemptions was therefore not material to the overall focus of the item, and did not mislead viewers....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-016 Dated the 26th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HUGH BARR of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-076 Decision No: 1998-077 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALICE HALLIWELL of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryMalcolm Sutherland, a New Zealand soldier in Vietnam in 1970, was killed by "friendly fire". The incident was "covered-up" by the platoon commander, Lieutenant Roger Mortlock, and the death was reported officially as being the result of "enemy fire". The cover-up was explained on a 20/20 item broadcast at 7. 30pm on 21 February 1999. The item reported that (now) Brigadier Mortlock had recently resigned under threat of dismissal. Ms Banbury, the late Malcolm Sutherland’s sister, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the item breached her privacy as she and another brother had been filmed at an emotional time at a Vietnam Veterans’ Reunion in 1998 when they accepted an honour on her brother’s behalf at a time when they did not know the true situation....

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant – interviewed one of the hostages – image was blurred – allegedly unfair and in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – hostage not identifiable in the broadcast – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – hostage consented to the interview – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 27 January 2009, reported on an armed robbery at a Burger King restaurant in Auckland in which five staff had been held hostage. The reporter stated that "a female hostage told 3 News she kept reliving the moments she thought would be her last, and she still can’t bear to be identified"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – two items covering the murder trial of Clayton Weatherston – first item contained footage of Mr Weatherston in court describing his attack – second item included the prosecutor saying the word “fucking” three times – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards Findings13 July item Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – details of attack given by Mr Weatherston were explicit – item should have been preceded by a warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning – broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item contained explicit details of violence – broadcaster did not exercise sufficient care and discretion – upheld Standard 6 (fairness)…...

...

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”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – exchange between reporter and Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, had been recorded prior to a scheduled interview – allegedly in breach of Dr Cullen’s privacy, unfair, and in breach of law and order and programme information standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – standard has no application on this occasion – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts – no interest in solitude and seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Dr Cullen – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – broadcast of anonymous interviewee’s allegations that the Hon David Benson-Pope was guilty of bullying students at Bayfield High School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – broadcasting allegations by anonymous interviewee unfair – RNZ did not verify interviewee’s credibility to a high standard before granting anonymity – did not undertake sufficient independent investigations into interviewee’s story – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue whether Mr Benson-Pope bullied students during his time as a teacher – RNZ made reasonable efforts to present significant perspectives within period of current interest – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one aspect subsumed under Principle 5 – decline to determine whether allegations were accurate – describing a caning as a “beating” not inaccurate – not upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $5,000…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Devlin Live – discussion of a press release from BP Oil explaining prices – allegedly unfair and in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – BP Communications Manager not personally attacked – not unfair – not unfair to criticise BP’s policy on fuel prices – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On Wednesday 7 September 2005, at around 8. 45am, the host of the Radio Live breakfast show Devlin Live, Martin Devlin, made a number of critical comments about a press release from BP Oil concerning petrol prices. The host referred to the press release as “PR BS” (public relations bullshit), and offered his view that BP Oil were trying to “screw” and “root” consumers....

Complaint Flipside – item looking into cheating at Universities – comment that Asian learning cultures rewarded copying while punished in New Zealand – inaccurate – denigrated Asian culture Findings Standard 5 – comments a mixture of facts and opinion – no inaccurate facts Standard 6 – genuine opinion – not unfair This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Cheating among students at universities was considered in a segment of Flipside broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm on Tuesday 1 October 2002. Dr David Brook, Deputy Vice Chancellor at the Auckland University of Technology, was one of the people interviewed. [2] Daphne Wong complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that Dr Brook’s comment that copying was rewarded in Asian cultures but punished in New Zealand, was untrue and denigrated an entire culture....

Summary A documentary about cigarette smoking in New Zealand called "Up in Smoke" was broadcast on Assignment on TV One, between 8. 30pm and 9. 30pm on 23 September 1999. The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand Limited ("Tobacco Institute") complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced in numerous ways. The Tobacco Institute also complained that the programme portrayed tobacco company executives and Maori women in a way which was likely to encourage discrimination against them. TVNZ responded that the programme was not unbalanced or unfair to the tobacco industry. In its view, the programme surveyed a broad range of relevant views about smoking, and included a tobacco industry perspective. TVNZ also disagreed that it had breached broadcasting standards relating to discrimination. TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reported on a young man who died of meningococcal disease after being assessed and sent home by medical professionals – reporter interviewed the Chief Executive of Northland District Health Board about the circumstances surrounding the man’s treatment – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item did not create a misleading impression as to the doctor’s qualifications but clearly stated that he was a “doctor” and “senior trainee” close to sitting his exams – did not create a misleading impression by omitting information about the risks associated with lumbar punctures – the decision not to administer the test earlier was based on a misdiagnosis of the man’s condition as opposed to the perceived risks of the procedure – not inaccurate to report that the man died from meningitis – not upheld Standard 6…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....