Search Rapua

A 1 News item covered the National Party’s conference in Queenstown and noted a clash between the Party’s policies and having their conference in Queenstown. The complainant stated the report breached the balance and fairness standards as it was biased against the National Party. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the Party was treated fairly and provided an opportunity to respond to the criticism. The balance standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Balance...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Robert and Jono’s Drive Show – “Wind up Your Wife” – telephone prank in which wife told husband she was getting restraining order against his mother – host pretended to be policeman – broadcaster asserted that husband and wife consented to broadcast – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – recording contained elements of unfairness – questionable whether recording amounted to legitimate humour – broadcaster’s processes for obtaining and recording consent insufficient – however, in the particular circumstances, it is not appropriate for the Authority to make further inquiries – reluctantly accept informed consent to broadcast was sought and obtained – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A segment called “Wind up Your Wife” on Robert and Jono’s Drive Show was broadcast on The Rock at 5. 30pm on Wednesday 15 December 2010....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported domestic violence statistics showing an increase in the number of deaths caused by family violence – contained interviews with Labour Party spokesperson for Women’s Affairs, and Christchurch Women’s Refuge representative – allegedly in breach of standards relating to balance, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – item focused on statistics showing increase in deaths caused by family violence – it did not comment on the gender of perpetrators and victims, and did not specify that the increase in deaths was among women only – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on recently released statistics for domestic violence in New Zealand....

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION SummaryThe case of a social worker convicted of child abuse offences whose name had beensuppressed was examined in an item on Channel 2's 60 Minutes broadcast between7. 30–8. 30pm on Sunday 4 September. One aspect of the story was that his pastbehaviour had worried some of his fellow social workers who had drawn theirconcerns to the attention of the supervisory staff. Before the broadcast, Mrs MacKenzie, Chief Social Worker for the AucklandHospital Board from 1982–1991, declined by telephone to comment to 60 Minuteson personnel matters. She was subsequently approached by 60 Minutes' reporter anda crew – with cameras rolling – outside her home when leaving for work one morning. She again declined to comment and went inside. She complained to Television NewZealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the incident had breached a number of broadcastingstandards and in addition that it had breached her privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-123 Decision No: 1997-124 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by R J A MILLER of Invercargill and L SMITH of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryEmergency Heroes is a series which features the police and other emergency services responding to actual incidents. The response by a police patrol to a threat from a woman to commit suicide by jumping from a building was dealt with during an item in an episode broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Tuesday 16 February 1999. Mr R complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached a number of broadcasting standards and intruded on the privacy of both the woman and her family. Pointing out that he was the woman’s former husband and father of her three children, he said that she was easily identifiable to acquaintances because of her voice which was heard in the item, and her clothing. A 15 year old son who had seen the programme, he added, now needed ongoing counselling....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Sunday – previewed item on disputed territory of East Jerusalem – presenter stated, “Sunday travels to Israel to bring you Jew against Arab from a truly unique perspective” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – phrase was a fair summary of the situation featured in the programme – both sides were represented in the promo – did not reach threshold for encouraging discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard applies to individuals not groups – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – promo did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the current affairs programme Sunday was broadcast between 1....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – statement broadcast about a complaint upheld by the Authority – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement was an accurate representation of the Authority's decision – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – nothing unfair to Mr Greally in the statement – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd was ordered to broadcast a statement after a complaint had been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Decision No: 2006-020 related to a complaint by Elizabeth Dunning about a One News item screened on 3 February 2006. The statement required by the Authority was broadcast on TV One during One News at approximately 6pm on 22 November 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion about the use of mobile devices in Parliament – brief interview with Act Party leader Rodney Hide – Mr Hide alleged he was treated unfairly in the preparation of the programme – said the reporter had obtained information through misrepresentation and deception – allegedly unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – alleged unfairness in preparation of programme not reflected in what was broadcast – programme not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Agenda, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 8 April 2006, discussed the use of mobile devices in Parliament. It noted that Standing Orders did not allow the use of mobile devices and laptops during Question Time....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – host conducted interview with Dick Pound, founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency – host made three references to Jamaica – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Checkpoint contained an interview with Dick Pound, the founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report discussed Mark Lundy's retrial for the murder of his wife and daughter. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item incorrectly inferred that Mr Lundy had actively been seeking increased life insurance on the day the murders occurred, and that this was unfair. The item was a straightforward report of the latest evidence given at trial and the item as a whole clarified the meaning of its opening statements. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Law and Order, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Morning Report discussed Mark Lundy's retrial for the murder of his wife and daughter. The item reported that 'Mark Lundy's retrial has been told that he tried to increase his family's life insurance just hours before his wife and daughter were hacked to death'....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a clip of members of Action Zealandia shown in the documentary Patrick Gower: On Hate breached the fairness standard. The clip, approximately four seconds long, showed several unidentifiable members walking with a flag bearing Action Zealandia’s symbol. The complainant alleged that the broadcast unfairly associated the group with terrorism, and that Action Zealandia should have been given the opportunity to comment. The Authority considered the group’s participation was minor in the context of the broadcast. The broadcaster was therefore not required to inform Action Zealandia that the clip would be featured. It further found that the broadcaster was not obliged to give Action Zealandia an opportunity to comment as part of the documentary. Not Upheld: Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an interview on Saturday Morning, where the host misgendered and ‘deadnamed’ the interviewee, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the host’s words, it found the words were directed at the interviewee as an individual, not a section of society as required by the standard. The Authority, in implying the fairness standard, did not consider listeners would have been left with a negative impression of the interviewee. The potential harm therefore did not reach the threshold justifying regulatory intervention.    Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...