Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 1 News reported on an alleged ‘mistake’ by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), which the reporter, Andrea Vance, said ‘cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars’. The item referred to MFAT’s action in waiving the diplomatic immunity of an MFAT employee – the complainant – to allow child custody and matrimonial proceedings to be heard in an overseas court. According to Ms Vance, MFAT’s actions were disputed by the complainant’s ex-partner, resulting in MFAT issuing an apology and payment of ‘legal bills’ to both the complainant and the complainant’s ex-partner. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from the MFAT employee that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Sunday, featuring a family who complained to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) about allegedly inadequate maternity healthcare following the death of their baby, breached the fairness and privacy standards. The Authority found it was unfair to name the complainant, HV, as the consultant obstetrician on the case prior to the HDC completing its investigation or making any findings. Singling out HV in this way had the effect of predetermining an adverse conclusion about their responsibility (whether or not that was the broadcaster’s intention), and the complainant was not informed about the proposed broadcast or given an opportunity to respond or mitigate any reputational impact. On privacy, the Authority found the fact HV was subject to an HDC complaint was information about which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint from the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) about an interview with Nicky Hager discussing the results of an Australian enquiry into its Defence Force and the implications for the NZDF. The Authority noted the high public interest in the broadcast and found that as it was clearly coming from Mr Hager’s perspective and other news bulletins signalled other views, the balance standard was not breached. The broadcast was not unfair to the NZDF. It is a government agency that can reasonably expect public scrutiny. In addition, comment from the Defence Minister was sought and included in later news bulletins. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

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 item on 1 News was denigrating or unfair by including footage of a displaced West Auckland resident, following the Auckland Anniversary floods, taking a donut from a box. The complaint stated the footage represented a racial stereotype, degrading the woman. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard as it concerned the woman as an individual rather than a recognised section of the community, and was not unfair as she was not portrayed unfairly negatively. In any case, inclusion of the footage was an editorial choice that was open to the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 12/95 Dated the 9th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JAMES OAKLEY of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris 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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-066 Dated the 25th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK PARFITT of Palmerston North THE RADIO NETWORK LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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 1989Close Up – item reported that a 40-year-old man had been accused of knowingly infecting people with HIV – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – identifiable to limited group of people who had seen the website or the photos – allegation of criminal behaviour not a private fact – HIV-positive status normally a private fact but public interest defence applied – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – high level of public interest especially in alerting those who could identify the man – guideline relating to discrimination and denigration not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast at 7pm on TV One on 15 May 2009, was introduced as follows: What kind of person knowingly infects lovers with the HIV virus?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about the experience of a man who purchased the “Hire A Hubby” franchise for the suburb of Greenlane in Auckland – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate or misleading – Target mentioned that there had been a settlement – the settlement was not the focus of the item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness arguments relied on the programme being misleading – FBL was treated fairly and given a fair opportunity to comment – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 29 April 2008, covered the story of Colin Hinds and his experience as a Hire A Hubby franchisee....

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....

Complaint Radio Sport – host Doug Golightly told caller, “For Christ’s sake, piss off” – offensive – unfair Findings Principle 1 – context – not upheld Principle 5 – comment directed at caller – bad tempered – verging on breach – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] During a talkback session on Radio Sport on 13 December 2003, at about 10. 00am, the host Doug Golightly said to a caller, “For Christ’s sake, piss off”. [2] Chris Baker complained to The Radio Network Ltd (TRN), the broadcaster, that the language was offensive and the comment was unfair. [3] In response, TRN declined to uphold the complaint. It considered the attitude apparent and the language contained in the item were acceptable in the robust style of talk show hosted by Mr Golightly....

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)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – documentary about Phenomena Academy in Fiordland – NZQA accredited institution that teaches how to be healthy and happy – questions raised as to whether students under undue influence from Academy’s founder Aiping Wang – focussed on experience of four former students who were critical of her methods – complaint made by general manager of Academy – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – Academy representatives given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations – lengthy interviews with Aiping Wang and with complainant – views were clearly communicated – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – other statements not inaccurate – not unnecessarily alarmist – no evidence of lack of editorial independence – upheld on two aspects Standard 6 (fairness) – participants given adequate and reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations made – views were clearly…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Not Going Out – scene showed character dancing with baby – held baby at arm’s length and moved him from side to side – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – character did not shake baby – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no actual violence – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – classified AO and screened at 11pm outside of children’s viewing times – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – characters fictional – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – complainant did not specify who he considered had been denigrated or discriminated against – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on a disagreement between two individuals about their input into a Rugby World Cup statue – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a balanced and straightforward news report – neither party presented as more credible or worthy than the other – included comment from both parties – no evidence to suggest interview footage unfairly edited – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a straightforward news report – broadcaster was not required to explain the complainant’s position in more detail – viewers would not have been misled – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – complainant’s concerns relate to issues of copyright – Authority cannot assume the role of a court – standard not applicable…...