Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Farming Show – host told anecdote about his experience at The Waterfront Bar & Bistro in Queenstown – claimed he was refused service after having a “couple of beers” and commented that it was “poor form” on the part of the bar – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host’s comments were inappropriate – host abused his position by allegedly threatening the bar staff with bad publicity and then following through by airing a personal grievance to enact revenge on a named business – business had no opportunity to defend itself – The Waterfront Bar & Bistro treated unfairly – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on The Project discussed the building of a new gambling venue in Tokoroa set to contain 30 gambling machines (‘pokies’). The segment was critical of the South Waikato District Council’s (SWDC) role in the authorisation of this new venue, and also one of the Councillors’ roles as both a Councillor and manager of one of the clubs involved in the creation of the proposed new venue. The following evening one of the programme hosts issued an on-air apology to the Councillor, clarifying inaccurate statements made about their involvement in the decision-making process. The Authority upheld SWDC’s complaint that the action taken by MediaWorks did not sufficiently remedy the harm caused by the breaches. The Authority found that the statement the following night did not remedy the harm caused to SWDC by the broadcast, only the Councillor....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about an interview between Kim Hill and Rt Hon Winston Peters regarding the relationship between New Zealand First and the Labour Party was not upheld. The complainant submitted the interview was unbalanced because Kim Hill’s interviewing of Mr Peters was ‘biased, rude and condescending’. The Authority found that, while Ms Hill asked Mr Peters challenging and critical questions, Mr Peters had a reasonable opportunity to put forward his competing point of view. Given the level of public interest in the interview, Mr Peter’s position and his experience with the media, the Authority also found Ms Hill’s interview style did not result in Mr Peters being treated unfairly....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – reported on Christchurch homeowners living in the government’s red zone with regard to their replacement insurance policies – interviewed Tower Insurance customer who had been advised that his replacement insurance would cover the cost of repairing his damaged house but not its full replacement value – visited Tower’s head office – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Campbell Live exhausted all legitimate methods to obtain comment from Tower – Mr Campbell’s approach polite and non-confrontational – door-stepping used as a means of obtaining information and constructive comment – not unfair to Tower or the receptionist – reference to email a fair summary of its contents – overall Tower treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – carried out testing on imported and locally produced olive oil – stated that sensory panel was “IOC accredited” and its supervisor was “the only person qualified by the IOC… to convene a sensory panel” – reported that all European imports failed sensory test and two failed chemical test – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – references to IOC accreditation were inaccurate and gave greater status to the testing than was justified – broadcaster was put on notice that the testing was not “IOC accredited” but nevertheless made statements of fact to that effect – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – notwithstanding finding one aspect of the programme was inaccurate, complainant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and mitigate any resulting unfairness, and its response was adequately presented – not upheld No Order This headnote does…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp on Valentine’s Day reported on a woman who had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item glamorised theft and was unfair to the man. It was clear from the item that the woman had given the man ample opportunity to retrieve the sunglasses, and he was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgramingIntroduction[1] An episode of Seven Sharp, broadcast on 14 February 2014, included an ‘anti-Valentine’s Day’ story where a woman had auctioned a pair of sunglasses on TradeMe that were left at her house by a man she met on the smartphone dating app ‘Tinder’....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-027–028:Kyrke-Smith Family and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-027, 1993-028717. 05 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on a family who had purchased land in Papamoa only to find that the section had an actual size of 258m2, rather than the 296m2 shown on the property title and in their Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). The item found that the surveyor was responsible for the incorrect description on the title. However, the item also discussed an extract from an email sent to the purchaser by the real estate agent involved, Wayne Skinner, asking for a notation on the SPA seeking verification of the land site to be removed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust has a regular broadcasting programme on Te Arawa FM, which is paid for by the Trust and enables the Trust to ‘share its views on issues affecting the Trust with its beneficiaries’. The programme featured an interview with the Trust’s deputy chairman, in which he made a number of negative comments about Te Komiti Nui o Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Whakaue Tribal Lands Incorporation and its former chairman. The Authority upheld a complaint that the programme was unbalanced, as it contained a discussion of issues that were controversial and of public importance to Te Arawa’s audience, but did not present any significant countering viewpoints to those expressed by the interviewee. The Authority also upheld the complaint that the former chairman of NWTLI, the complainant, was treated unfairly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub discussed revelations that the pension of New Zealand First Leader, Rt Hon Winston Peters, had been overpaid for up to seven years. The segment featured excerpts of a phone interview with Mr Peters, details about Mr Peters’ press release and subsequent comments made by Mr Peters about the overpayments. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was unbalanced and unfair. The Authority did not consider that it was necessary to obtain a copy of the full phone interview transcript in order to determine whether the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair (as requested by the complainant)....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on Government’s spending review to assist with the cost of the Christchurch earthquake – showed footage of students helping with the clean-up and stated that “Canterbury students have been out on the streets cleaning up Christchurch, but today they weren’t being thanked, they were being targeted by the Finance Minister” – showed Finance Minister stating that the Government was not “ruling anything in or out” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement that students were being “targeted” amounted to political commentary – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr English is a political figure – item clearly portrayed his position on interest-free student loans – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-134:Sage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-134 PDF779. 51 KB...

Download a PDF of Interlocutory Decision No. ID1992-003:Centrepoint Community Growth Trust and TV3 Network Services Ltd - ID1992-003 PDF558. 63 KB...

SummaryA Frontline programme broadcast on 12 September 1993 focused on the electricity pricingarrangements between Comalco (NZ) Ltd and ECNZ and raised questions about the ratescharged to domestic and large commercial consumers. Comalco (NZ) Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd thatthe item lacked objectivity and left misleading and damaging impressions. In particular itobjected to the implication that Comalco's electricity was subsidised by domestic consumers,and to the suggestion that its recent pricing agreement with ECNZ was to be kept secret soas to avoid embarrassing the government in the pre-election period. Maintaining that an investigation of the pricing arrangements was in the public interest,TVNZ rejected all aspects of the complaint. It argued that the question about whether thearrangement was a subsidy or a discount was balanced by comment from Comalcoofficials and from energy analysts....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion about the use of mobile devices in Parliament – brief interview with Act Party leader Rodney Hide – Mr Hide alleged he was treated unfairly in the preparation of the programme – said the reporter had obtained information through misrepresentation and deception – allegedly unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – alleged unfairness in preparation of programme not reflected in what was broadcast – programme not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Agenda, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 8 April 2006, discussed the use of mobile devices in Parliament. It noted that Standing Orders did not allow the use of mobile devices and laptops during Question Time....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interviewed fashion designers Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper, who were involved in a High Court case about their branding – reported that Tamsin Cooper's silk velvet coats, labelled as 100% silk, had been tested and the fabric was “not 100% silk, but mostly viscose” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Tamsin Cooper – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on 3 December 2007 at 7. 30pm on TV One, discussed a High Court action involving fashion designers Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – promos for the programme contained footage not used in the actual broadcast – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – person alleged to have been treated unfairly did not take part in and was not referred to in the item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....