Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South – presenter visited lighthouse on Dog Island – told story about lighthouse keeper who “apparently fell to his death” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – factual programme – story was presented as gossip or an anecdote – prefaced with “apparently” and “it appears” – not material points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness standard does not apply to deceased persons – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The first episode of South, a programme featuring presenter Marcus Lush exploring Southland, was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Sunday 16 August 2009. [2] Mr Lush was shown setting out on his journey, and travelling first to Dog Island off the bottom of the South Island....

...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-138 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G RAWSON of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint Classic Hits 89. 4FM Nelson - content of Nelson’s Mainland Television described as “crap” – offensive and unacceptable Findings Principle 7 – not applicable Principle 1 – not offensive in context – not upheld Principle 5 – humorous editorial comment was not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] A news report that a city (Oslo) was offering trips through the sewer system as a tourist attraction was read on Classic Hits 89. 4FM in Nelson at about 7. 25am on Thursday 11 December 2003. The announcer added that, in Nelson, Mainland TV offered “four channels of crap all the time”. [2] On behalf of Mainland Television Ltd, the Managing Director (Gary Watson) complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unacceptable....

ComplaintInsight – item on the monarchy versus republic debate – unbalanced – unfair presentation – factual inaccuracies FindingsPrinciple 4 – range of views presented – no uphold Principle 5 – Dr Mann of the Monarchist League not dealt with unfairly – no uphold Principle 6 – no inaccuracies – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An Insight programme dealing with support for a monarchy and republicanism was broadcast on National Radio on Sunday 17 February 2002 between 8. 15–8. 45am. The Queen’s impending visit to New Zealand was the catalyst for the discussion. [2] On behalf of The Monarchist League of New Zealand Inc. , Dr Noel Cox, Chairman, complained to Radio New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced, factually incorrect and unfairly presented....

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-145 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FR FRANK DOWNS of Turangi Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-034 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-029:Dewar and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-029 PDF476. 89 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws talkback – discussed the release of a report by the Children’s Commissioner and Barnados which stated a quarter of a million children in New Zealand were living below the poverty line – host made critical comments about the Children’s Commissioner and the report – allegedly unfair and failed to present significant viewpoints Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – listeners would not expect a range of balanced views from Michael Laws’ talkback – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – host’s criticisms not unfair in robust talkback environment – important principle of freedom of speech that public officials are open to criticism – not unfair to deny complainant’s request to appear on air during unrelated programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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

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(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – item featured a woman who ran a sanctuary for ex-battery hens – included footage of caged hens – woman described condition of hens when they arrived at her property – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item focused on the experience of one woman – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about uric acid presented as fact – inaccurate but immaterial in context of human interest story – point was that chickens were in poor condition as a result of being caged – not misleading to use footage of battery hens – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – industry not an individual or organisation taking part or referred to – complainant did not take part and was not referred to – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

An appeal by Michael Hooker against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP SW 6/02 PDF1. 09 MBComplaintStripsearch – series incorrectly classified as PGR – unsuitable for children – adult themes – breach of good taste – denigrated men – deceptive programming practice – broadcaster not mindful of effect on children FindingsStandard G2 – did not exceed current norms of decency and good taste – no upholdStandard G4 – participants not treated unjustly or unfairly – no upholdStandard G6 – not relevant – no upholdStandard G7 – no upholdStandard G8 – warning that hybrid classification in final episode potentially a deceptive programming practice – no upholdStandard G12 – no upholdStandard G13 – series did not discriminate against men – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] Stripsearch was a seven-part series broadcast on TV2 on Tuesday evenings at 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with Sir Eion Edgar – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Monday 22 February 2010, the host interviewed Sir Eion Edgar as he had recently been named Senior New Zealander of the Year....

ComplaintSecret New Zealand – death of Norman Kirk – various theories explored – a conspiracy theory advanced linked death to trial of Dr Bill Sutch for spying – inaccurate details of trial – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – speculation advanced – not fact – no uphold Standard 6 – Dr Sutch not dealt with unfairly in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Secret New Zealand presented three perspectives on the death in 1974 of former Prime Minister, Norman Kirk. The series examined events in New Zealand which were not adequately explained at the time . The episode complained about was broadcast on TV One at 8. 00pm on 2 September 2002. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate and unfair....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on likely ban of guided heli-hunting on conservation land – contained file footage of commercial deer recovery – footage allegedly inaccurate, misleading and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – footage of commercial hunting would have misled viewers to believe that it applied directly to the story – footage should have been explained to ensure that viewers understood it related to commercial hunting which is a completely different industry to heli-hunting – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item did not mislead – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – commercial hunting industry was not an “organisation” for the purposes of the standard – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....