Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The host of The Paul Henry Show and a TV3 reporter briefly discussed the future of Auckland’s Wynyard Quarter tram service, in a new segment titled ‘Council Watch’, and summarised the cost of the project to rate-payers. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the segment was one-sided and misled viewers about the reason the trams were not currently operating. It is legitimate and important for the expenditure of public money to be scrutinized and subject to robust criticism, and the focus of the item was the cost of the project; other reasons why the tram service was not running were peripheral to that focus, so viewers would not have been misled by omitting reference to those reasons....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the leaders’ debate between Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and Hon Judith Collins breached broadcasting standards. The programme carried a high level of public interest. Both debate participants were senior politicians who had a clear understanding of the nature of their participation in the debate and were given fair opportunity to respond to the questions raised. Not Upheld: Discrimination and denigration, Balance, Fairness...

ComplaintBoxing: De la Hoya v Mosely – boxing – omission of action between rounds – misleading – distorted editingFindings(1) Standard G1 – no inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G19 – editorial discretion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Boxing: De la Hoya v Mosely, a world championship boxing bout between Oscar De la Hoya and Shane Mosely, was broadcast on TV3 on 18 June 2000 between 4. 00pm and 6. 00pm. John Reynolds complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the coverage was of a portion of the fight only, as the events and activities which took place between rounds were not screened, in favour of commercial breaks. Mr Reynolds said that this "integral" part of the match was deliberately omitted, and that this was misleading and unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – update on a previous item about a used Ferrari – item reported that Continental Car Services Ltd had “refused to hand over” a statement of compliance for the vehicle – item implied that CCS was engaging in restrictive trade practices – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – TVNZ upheld two points as inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained several inaccurate and misleading statements – item as a whole was also inaccurate – action taken by TVNZ insufficient – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to CCS and Mr Pitt – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $5,283. 00 Payment of costs to the Crown $2500. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News and Tonight – allegations of gang-related bullying at Taradale High School – item reported that petition given to school board by students – reported that petition was against bullying and sought to have students responsible removed – One News referred to troublemaking students as “Black Power bullies” – Tonight referred to them as “Black Power babies” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interestsFindingsMr Calcinai’s complaintStandard 5 (accuracy) – item implied that Board of Trustees took no action until presented with students’ petition – inaccurate – petition did not request board to remove students referred to as “Black Power babies” – inaccurate – situation described as “bullying” – was in fact two conflicting parties – not made clear in item – inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to school’s reputation to suggest gang-related…...

ComplaintGive It a Whirl – documentary – stories from rock'n'roll era in New Zealand – included comments about a 1960s music show C'mon – ‘apple incident' recalled and comments said to be inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 – majority – evidence sufficient to conclude that incident did not occur – uphold – minority – anecdote not expected to be entirely accurate – no uphold Standard 6 – evidence sufficient to rule that complainant treated unfairly – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Give It a Whirl was a documentary series about the rock'n'roll era in New Zealand. An episode broadcast on TV One at 8. 40pm on 2 June 2003 referred to C'mon – a televised national music show in the 1960s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about woman who was soon to have a mastectomy because of breast cancer – item said woman had been told by a doctor, the complainant, almost a year previously that she had nothing to worry about – same advice said to be given six months later – woman referred to National Women’s Hospital on unrelated matter – woman again expressed concern about a breast lump – Hospital arranged mammogram and tumour revealed – reporter’s investigation allegedly involved breach of privacy and was unfair – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy – preparation) – preparation did not involve privacy breach – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness – preparation) – manner assertive but not unfair – not upheld Standard 4 (balance – broadcast) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy…...

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two items on Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough. The Authority did not uphold complaints from Mr Gough that the people interviewed made false claims about him, that his response was not fairly presented, and that the programmes breached his privacy. The broadcasts carried a high level of public interest, the claims made by those interviewed were clearly framed as their personal opinions and experiences, and the Authority was satisfied that the broadcaster had sufficient basis for the story. Mr Gough was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy Introduction[1] Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough, who restored and mounted original war medals, and also sold replicas to complete sets of medals....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on Hone Harawira’s travel expenses – stated that he “racked up a $35,000 travel bill. . . that’s almost $4000 more than the Māori Party’s total travel bill” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair to Mr Harawira FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – comparison based on Parliamentary Service expenditure only – failed to mention that Māori Party MPs also received funds from Ministerial Services – created misleading impression that Mr Harawira spent more than the entire Māori Party on travel – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hone Harawira is a political figure who should expect robust criticism – not unfair – not upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Thursday 28 April 2011, reported on MP Hone Harawira’s travel expenses....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of current affairs programme Outspoken interviewed two experts about the possibility of a special legal commission in New Zealand to investigate allegations of miscarriages of justice. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the broadcast breached standards because it did not mention alleged government corruption as one of the contributing factors to such injustice. Mr Golden has repeatedly referred similar complaints, which are based on his personal preferences and are matters of editorial discretion, not broadcasting standards. Declined to Determine: Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During Outspoken, a half-hour current affairs programme, the host interviewed two experts about the possibility of a special legal commission in New Zealand to investigate allegations of miscarriages of justice....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-170:Kent and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-170 PDF401. 5 KB...

...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – item mentioned Charlotte Dawson a number of times – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Decline to determine complaint under s. 11(a) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 on 8 November 2005 at 10pm contained a segment called “Save our Stars”, in which an actor went around the streets of Auckland collecting donations for various television presenters currently working for Prime Television. Correspondence [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the number of times Charlotte Dawson, a local celebrity, was mentioned in the programme. He argued that she had been referred to at least 11 times in the last 10 minutes of the episode, and submitted that Standards 4, 5 and 6 had been breached....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – consumer affairs programme – hidden camera footage showing check-in procedures at four airlines – reporter commented that Qantas attendant had shown “incredibly unprofessional customer service” – allegedly unfair and a breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no private or public facts disclosed – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcast of hidden camera footage not unfair when individual filmed in a public place in an employment situation interacting with member of the public, and where footage fairly represents what occurred – complainant unnecessarily identified, but overall not treated unfairly – no humiliation – editing of programme and presenter’s comments were fair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....