Search Rapua

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 80/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by L C EVANS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item and follow-up item reported on SPCA seizing neglected horses from Douglas Williamson’s farm – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled by either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Williamsons were well aware of the nature of the programmes and were given a fair opportunity to comment – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Tuesday 30 March 2010, was introduced by the presenter saying, “Tonight we’re exclusively with the SPCA and police as they seize dozens of neglected horses from a Christchurch farm. ” The presenter said: . . ....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – criticised comments made by the Fire Service after a house fire in which four children died – called Fire Service spokespeople “cocks”, “idiots”, “morons”, “arseholes” – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – comments went beyond criticising firemen’s actions in professional capacity – sustained personal abuse of individuals – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Michael Laws Talkback programme was broadcast between 9am and 12 noon on Wednesday 7 January 2009. The host’s topic for the day was a house fire in Mangere in which four children had died and two adults were seriously injured....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

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 sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the Teachers Council registering people with convictions – referred to the case of a high school teacher who had been “convicted of supplying P to four students” – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 2 – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while item was ambiguous as to whether Mr Arthur supplied P to his own students, it was inaccurate to state that he supplied P to students – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to state that Mr Arthur supplied P to students – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Classic Hits – host told a joke about two people in a “mental hospital” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard only applies to people taking part or referred to in a programme – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item was clearly signalled as a joke – legitimate use of humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Classic Hits Breakfast at 7. 45am on 13 June 2007, included a segment called “the 7. 45 funny” in which the following joke was broadcast: Jim and Edna were both patients at a mental hospital....

Complaint"Trial and Error" – 20/20 – David Bain murder trial – Milton Weir defamation action against Joe Karam – Weir’s admission that Bain jury was misled – inadvertent mistake – not first time admitted – unfair, unbalanced, impartial to present otherwise FindingsStandards G4 and G6 – impression given that first time mistake admitted – no evidence that mistake anything other then genuine – implication that Mr Weir might have intentionally misled jury – dramatic choice of language – interview with Assistant Commissioner of Police and reference to Police Complaints Authority’s report inadequate to provide balance/undo suggestion that mistake might have been intentional – uphold Standards G4 and G6 – aspects of complaint regarding evidential significance of mistake not a matter for the Broadcasting Standards Authority – decline to determine Standard G16 – standard concerned with the general viewing public – no uphold Standard G20 – reasonable efforts made to include Mr Weir in…...

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sean Plunket Morning – host interviewed Dr Paul Connett about his views against fluoridation of water – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed a controversial of public interest – period of current interest is ongoing so listeners aware of other views – Dr Connett was given ample opportunity to present his perspective – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – interview was robust but reasonable and good-natured – Dr Connett treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community, not individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOur People Our Century: "In the Family Way" – inaccurate, sexist statements – women portrayed as victims, men as violent abusers FindingsG1 – not inaccurate – no uphold G4 – not unfair – no uphold G6 – not relevant – balance not required in social history – no uphold G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The first episode of the documentary series Our People Our Century was broadcast on TV One on 7 February 2000 at 8. 30pm. It was entitled "In the Family Way" and looked at family life in New Zealand through the experiences of three different families. Bruce Tichbon complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme made a number of inaccurate sexist statements in relation to men, and unfairly and inaccurately portrayed women as victims and men as violent abusers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reference to British Prime Minister David Cameron as “an old mate of John Key’s” in relation to the Leveson Inquiry into British press – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reference to “old mate” in the introduction to the item was not a material point of fact and would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – brief comment did not implicate Mr Key in the manner alleged – not unfair to Mr Key – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the Leveson Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of British press....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an RNZ News bulletin reporting on the arrest of Kiritapu Allan, and political commentators’ views on the implications for Labour’s election chances, breached the balance and fairness standards. The complaint considered the item favoured two ‘negative’ opinions that were ‘noticeably biased against the Labour government’ and ignored a ‘positive’ balancing view available ‘just minutes earlier’ from Minister James Shaw. The Authority found the item was balanced, having included alternative significant perspectives just prior to the news bulletin. The fairness standard did not apply to the concern of how a ‘situation’ is presented, and in any event, the Authority did not consider either Allan or the Labour Party were treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Seven Sharp in which Hilary Barry made comments about the safety of the COVID-19 Pfizer vaccine and about ‘anti-vaxxers’, including suggesting those who do not want to be vaccinated could ‘jump on a ferry and go to the Auckland Islands for a few years, and then when we’ve got rid of COVID-19…come back’. The complaint alleged these comments breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, balance, accuracy and fairness standards, by suggesting the safety of the vaccine was almost without question, and denigrating those with a different view. The Authority found Ms Barry’s comments were unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or distress or undermine widely shared community standards. It found the broadcast did not address a controversial issue so the balance standard did not apply....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand documentary: “What’s Really in our Food” – discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme fairly presented significant viewpoints – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to persons or organisations taking part or referred to in the programme – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled “What’s Really in our Food” was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 13 September 2007. The programme discussed the effects and risks, and questioned the widespread use, of additives in New Zealand food....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Simulcast by broadcasters of the Good Vibrations Carnival at Cooper’s Beach between 1pm and 5pm Saturday 15 April 2006 – carnival organised as community response to Dr Neil Benson’s plan to open a brothel at Cooper’s Beach – broadcast included comments critical of brothel proposal and extracts critical of the proposal from the meeting at Mangonui Town Hall organised to discuss brothel proposal – broadcasts allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsDoubtless Bay Family RadioPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – approach taken in broadcast clearly explained and reasonable opportunities given for other significant points of view – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – Bensons not dealt with unfairly – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – brothel owners not denigrated or discriminated against – not upheldFar…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....