Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Prime News – pre-recorded BBC item reported on controversial comments by television presenter Jeremy Clarkson that striking workers should be shot – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – focus of the item was the comment made by Mr Clarkson which caused controversy – therefore not misleading to omit footage of other comments – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a brief snapshot of the response to Mr Clarkson’s comments – did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue that was of public importance in New Zealand – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – higher threshold for finding unfairness to public figure – Mr Clarkson was not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers were not disadvantaged or deceived by the clip of Mr Clarkson’s comments – not…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 121/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS MORGAN of Kihikihi Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J R Morris (Acting Chairperson) L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-006 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by N E ARCHER of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-054 Decision No: 1997-055 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by P J CULLINANE Bishop of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

SummaryA Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 5 August 1998 dealt with the attempt by a motor vehicle dealer to repossess a couple’s car. It was reported that the owner of the company had been fined by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute for misconduct. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair, unbalanced and impartial because it was the company, and not the individual, which had been fined. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Mr Radisich, as Chief Executive, was responsible for the company’s business and it did not consider that the item had been unfair to name him. It advised that it was unable to find any aspect which lacked balance or impartiality and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Radisich’s solicitor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – selection of items to include in news programmes is a matter of editorial discretion – complainant did not specify which parts of the programme breached standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Tuesday 29 June 2010. Complaint [2] River Tucker complained to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that “the lack of any in-depth reporting into issues that are important to New Zealanders” on 3 News breached standards relating to the discussion of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on group of duck hunters – hunters shown drinking alcohol and using firearms – brands of alcohol visible – man shown taking his pants off and diving onto a blow-up doll – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – item contained liquor promotion that was not socially responsible – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of man with blow-up doll and mixing of firearms and alcohol strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintCoronation Street – two episodes included domestic discord – males struck by females – unnecessary violence – gender discrimination Findings Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – characters treated unequally in fictional series – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 10 – violence displayed appropriate to dramatic storylines – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Domestic incidents showing physical abuse of men by their women partners were included in episodes of Coronation Street broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 25 September and 7 October 2003. [2] Edwin Stranaghan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each incident involved unnecessary violence and gender discrimination. He contended that it was discrimination to show women assaulting men, when it was unacceptable to show men assaulting women. He also argued that the programme should be broadcast later in the evening....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported – release of woman’s lawyer’s letter when lawyer was criticised by Minister of Immigration – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair to lawyer and failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – no principles of law involved – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – lawyer not given opportunity to respond to Minister’s criticism – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misleading as to source of letter – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to lawyer – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent developments in the case of a young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported were covered in an item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 beginning at 6....

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....

ComplaintOne News – Gisborne pathologist – misdiagnosis – inaccurate interpretation of statistics; unfair to pathologist FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfair to report the errors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The inquiry into the misdiagnosis of cervical smears in Gisborne was the subject of a report on One News broadcast on TV One on 7 January 2000 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. The item reported that the pathologist’s error rate was 86%. Stuart Slater complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the report was inaccurate and unfair to the pathologist. In his view, an attempt should have been made to provide a neutral, informed commentary against the allegations made. TVNZ responded that its report accurately represented the figures released by the Health Funding Authority and were attributed to it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on saving fuel costs – contained a number statements about hybrid cars, including the following comment which referred to the Toyota Prius, “The bottom line is that the British Consumer’s Institute just did a comparison between a diesel car and a hybrid car and found that the diesel car was in fact more efficient....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Native Affairs, entitled ‘Bones of Contention’, reported on the discovery of ‘kōiwi’ (human remains) at a development site in Devonport, and apparent tensions between iwi and the owner and developer of the site, Redback Develop Ltd. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from Redback that the item contained inaccurate information about the development and the discovery of kōiwi. Nor did the Authority uphold the complaint that the content of the panel discussion was misleading. The broadcaster treated Redback fairly and made reasonable efforts to put forward Redback’s position, by inviting onto the programme the individual who it had been referred to as the appropriate person to comment....

*Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Morning Report looked at the Taranaki Regional Council’s ‘landfarming’ policy and contained an interview with a Council representative. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast was misleading, unfair and unbalanced. The report was an accurate and fair reflection of what the representative told the reporter in the interview, and it is legitimate and important in our free and democratic society to challenge and criticise public bodies on matters of strong public interest. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on Morning Report reported on the Taranaki Regional Council’s (TRC) ‘landfarming’ policy. The reporter interviewed TRC’s Director of Environment Quality, Gary Bedford, and his comments formed the basis of the story....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....