Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Back Benches – Mt Albert by-election special – programme featured candidates from Labour, National, Green, ACT and United Future – candidates campaigned for votes and addressed various issues facing the electorate – allegedly in breach of balance and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – programme discussed controversial issues of public importance – criteria used by broadcaster to select participants was justifiable – a variety of significant viewpoints was presented – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – ALCP did not take part and was not referred to – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Back Benches was broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 9pm on Friday 10 June 2009....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-154 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN TURNEY of Kumeu Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host interviewed Professor of Māori history about 21 hui selecting a ‘Māori’ flag to be flown on Auckland Harbour Bridge on Waitangi Day – both host and interviewee commented that the process was a waste of time and money – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance – One News item the previous evening presented alternative viewpoints which provided balance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments reinforced negative stereotypes but did not reach threshold necessary for encouraging denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments about Tino Rangatiratanga flag being one of division were clearly the host’s opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness to Māori dealt…...

Summary Host John Banks abruptly cut off a caller to Radio Pacific on 28 August at about 6. 22am, saying that he had used a four letter word. A few minutes earlier, he had referred to a woman caller as a person who lived her life in abject misery. Mr Reardon, the caller who had been cut off, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that it was an absolute lie to state that he had used a four letter word as could be verified by a copy of the tape. In his view, this and the other incident he described demonstrated that the host’s manner was an appalling insult to talkback tradition. Radio Pacific explained that Mr Reardon had been cut off accidentally when the Panel Operator pushed the wrong button....

Summary Four appliance repair centres were given a faulty microwave oven to repair and the results were reported on Target broadcast by TV3 Network Services Ltd on 6 June 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. Manukau Appliance Service Centre Ltd repaired the microwave by bypassing the variable power switch with the result that it could only operate on high power. Mr Welch, Managing Director of Manukau Appliance Service Centre, complained to the broadcaster that the item was unfair to his company because it left the impression that his staff were incompetent in locating faults in electrical equipment. Of major concern, he said, was that TV3 had failed to include explanatory comment from the company about the work it had done. TV3 responded that the repair test had been conducted fairly and the testing had been overseen by two independent technical experts....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – product check on sunscreens – noted that there was no standard for sunscreens in New Zealand – said only two of the five trial products advertised that they complied with the Australian standard – also stated that the recommended product was “tested to the official standard” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of programme information standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – some ambiguity later in segment but, overall, viewers would not have been misled about the focus of the segment – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster not required to give complainant an opportunity to comment because item did not comment on effectiveness of product – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 5 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the murder of Deidre Tobin by her partner Craig Jackson – Mr Jackson found not guilty by reason of insanity – interviewed Ms Tobin’s family and friends plus two detectives who believed Mr Jackson was faking his insanity – allegedly in breach of law and order, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – Authority unable to determine the position of the Crown solicitor – overall programme was balanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Jackson, Dr Simpson or the Tobin family – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item entitled “Insanely Jealous?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Pacific Coast FM – interview with Coromandel resident Bill Muir discussing local politics in Whitianga – during the item Mr Muir made a number of critical statements alleging serious misconduct by members of the local district council and community board – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy, fairness and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 5 (fairness) – item named people who were accused of unsubstantiated illegal activity – host did not challenge Mr Muir when he made the allegations – Mr Muir’s statements went beyond acceptable comment on political activity – unfair – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain other significant perspectives – upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – not within the Authority’s jurisdiction to determine allegations of criminal behaviour – decline to determine under section…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – item on a man named Paul Cleave and his attempts to get his camera repaired – item explained that Mr Cleave had received a loan camera from the retailer – Mr Cleave was shown stating that he was not going to return the loan camera – the presenter made a number of comments about him taking the loan camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, balance and fairness standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – the Authority received conflicting evidence on two statements complained about and declined to determine them – the other three statements complained about were accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a fair representation of Mr Cleave’s conduct – item’s change in focus was prompted by Mr Cleave’s own behaviour – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Mr Cleave signed a consent form allowing…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-111 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEVE BISHOP of Albany TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item discussed the assault on convicted murderer William Bell by fellow prison inmates – presenter made a statement regarding the assault – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – host’s statement was sarcastic – made clear to viewers that neither host supported violence against prisoners – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people referred to were treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fast Times at Ridgemont High – female movie characters shown practising on carrots how to perform oral sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and fairness FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – no explicit sexual activity was shown – movie was AO and broadcast outside of children’s viewing times – warning for sexual material allowed parents to exercise discretion – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Fast Times at Ridgemont High was broadcast on C4 at 8. 30pm on Wednesday 9 December 2009. At approximately 8. 42pm, two teenage female characters in the movie were shown eating in a high school cafeteria....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintSome of my best friends are … Muslims – Muslims, Christians and "zsh" described favourably as religions – "zsh" apparently "Jewish" but allegedly censored – excision breached standards of balance, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4; Standard 5; Standard 6 – no evidence of any censorship in programme designed to promote tolerance – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The comments made by a Muslim woman were indistinct when she was promoting understanding between Muslims, Christians and a third religious group – possibly Jews. The incident occurred in the programme, Some of my best friends are… which looks at minority groups in New Zealand. Muslims was the group featured in the programme broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 29 March 2003....

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....