Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – claimed that product leaves timber vulnerable to borer or rot – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – two statements in breach of Standard 5 – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Osmose as manufacturer of TimberSaver – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $1,500 Payment of costs to the Crown $1,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on TV One on One News at 6pm on 12 July 2005 stated that TimberSaver (also known as T1. 2), a timber product being used on homes in the wake of the “leaky homes” scandal, was vulnerable to borer or rot....

SummaryEmergency Heroes is a series which features the police and other emergency services responding to actual incidents. The response by a police patrol to a threat from a woman to commit suicide by jumping from a building was dealt with during an item in an episode broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Tuesday 16 February 1999. Mr R complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached a number of broadcasting standards and intruded on the privacy of both the woman and her family. Pointing out that he was the woman’s former husband and father of her three children, he said that she was easily identifiable to acquaintances because of her voice which was heard in the item, and her clothing. A 15 year old son who had seen the programme, he added, now needed ongoing counselling....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – The Justin du Fresne Show – host terminated a call saying “why don’t you just bugger off, you bigoted old silly man” – allegedly unfairFindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – robust environment of talkback radio – comments not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On The Justin du Fresne Show, broadcast on Newstalk ZB on the morning of 18 April 2005, a caller expressed the view that there was one law for Māori and another law for everybody else with regard to carrying weapons in public. Following a brief exchange, the host terminated the call saying “why don’t you just bugger off, you bigoted old silly man”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – statement broadcast about a complaint upheld by the Authority – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement was an accurate representation of the Authority's decision – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – nothing unfair to Mr Greally in the statement – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd was ordered to broadcast a statement after a complaint had been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Decision No: 2006-020 related to a complaint by Elizabeth Dunning about a One News item screened on 3 February 2006. The statement required by the Authority was broadcast on TV One during One News at approximately 6pm on 22 November 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained footage of bare breasts and women in their underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information and children’s interests standards. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of semi-naked women were not sexualised or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item conveyed a positive message – item did not denigrate women – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – programme did not use subliminal perception – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme classified PGR – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Summary In an item on Holmes broadcast on 1 July 1998 between 7. 00–7. 30pm, tributes were paid to a nine-year-old girl who had died from a brain tumour. It was reported that in spite of having had surgery in the United States, she had recently died. Mrs Hunt of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the close up pictures of "a very ill, sad and distressed child" were totally unnecessary and would have caused distress to any parents or children suffering from terminal illnesses. She said she considered it in the worst possible taste to show pictures of a child close to death, and she contended it was particularly disturbing to children. TVNZ emphasised that the tribute to the little girl reflected the Holmes team’s esteem for her....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A – host interviewed Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions and John Barnett from South Pacific Pictures about controversy surrounding production of the film The Hobbit in New Zealand – host’s approach towards Ms Kelly allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host’s approach aggressive but did not extend to personal attack against Ms Kelly – Ms Kelly should have expected to be interviewed robustly about The Hobbit dispute – not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – Ms Kelly given adequate opportunity to present the union’s viewpoint – significant perspectives on the topic presented within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and…...

ComplaintEureka – Royal Commission on Genetic Modification – GE Free rally – rally participants interviewed – approach assured participants rejected Commission findings – views misrepresented – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 5 – interviewees not treated unfairly – no uphold Principle 6 – factual reports and opinion distinguished – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with one of the Commissioners from the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, and comments from participants at a GE-Free rally, were included in the edition of Eureka broadcast on National Radio on 9 September 2001 and repeated on 10 September. Eureka is a science magazine programme broadcast weekly. [2] Jon Carapiet complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme’s approach was unbalanced as the item sought to represent those at the rally as ill-informed. Consequently, he said, their views were misrepresented....

ComplaintMore FM – radio competition – disclosure of work-place – unfair – breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (v) – complainant’s work-place private information – uphold – apology to complainant sufficientPrinciple 5 – broadcaster upheld complaint – action taken sufficientNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] On 10 May 2002, B entered a radio competition on More FM in Dunedin. B’s work-place details were broadcast, after he had specifically stated that he did not want his work-place disclosed on-air. [2] B complained to More FM, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached his privacy and was a "blatant and deceitful" breach of the requirement that broadcasters deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a broadcast. He also complained directly to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the same broadcast had breached his privacy....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a news report on 1News breached several standards, by using the phrase Hamas ‘fighters’, rather than Hamas ‘terrorists’. The Authority found the choice of word could not reasonably be said to encourage the different treatment of Jewish or Israeli people, devalue their reputation, or embed negative stereotypes about them. Under accuracy, the Authority found the word was not inaccurate, was not material in the context of the broadcast as a whole, and there was no harm at a level justifying limitation of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and editorial independence. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Balance and Fairness...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub explored concerns of members of the public and the Christchurch City Council regarding potential water contamination from a bore drilled by Cloud Ocean Water and pending judicial review action taken against Environment Canterbury (ECan) over their resource consent processes. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast was inaccurate and unfair to Cloud Ocean Water. The Authority found that Cloud Ocean Water’s responses to questions from Newshub prior to the broadcast were fairly reflected in the item, and that viewers were unlikely to be misled regarding the nature of Cloud Ocean Water’s involvement in the resource consent process or the judicial review....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-128 Decision No: 1997-129 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CRIMINAL BAR ASSOCIATION of NEW ZEALAND INC Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a talkback programme which discussed the protests and occupation of Parliament. The Authority found the programme was within audience expectations and did not contain language in breach of the good taste and decency standard. Callers were not treated unfairly, given the talkback environment. The remaining standards were not breached or did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Programme Information, Balance, Accuracy...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-071 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT TERRY of Reefton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging R&R breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness standards. The programme discussed Aotearoa New Zealand’s colonial history. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preferences regarding matters of editorial discretion. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

SummaryWhen Women Kill, a documentary about two women who had both served 10 years in prison for murder was broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1999 at 8. 30pm. Bruce Tichbon complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that individuals referred to in the programme by the two women had not been treated fairly as they had not been given an opportunity to respond to accusations made about their conduct. He also complained that the programme was unbalanced because of comments made by a prison manager and because, Mr Tichbon said, it portrayed women as victims and men as violent abusers of women and children. TVNZ responded that the programme had not concealed the fact that it was tracing the women’s lives from their point of view. In those circumstances it considers it was not necessary to include the people referred to in the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – three items and promo for programme discussed complainant’s businesses and websites – spoke to a number of his customers who believed they had been “ripped off” – referred to complainant as an “internet fraudster” and “a face to what is often a faceless crime” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – reporter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr Katavich and door-stepping was not unfair – not upheld – thrust of the programmes was that Mr Katavich was a criminal and a fraudster – no evidence to suggest that his business activities were illegal – unfair to Mr Katavich – upheldStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Katavich did not have an interest in seclusion at his business offices – business address was not a private fact and was not disclosed for the purposes of…...