Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 25/95 Dated the 12th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – alleged that ACC had not fulfilled its legal obligation to tell its clients about an Independent Earner Tax Credit – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – complainant concerned that it was not given an opportunity to respond to one statement in the item – that issue was not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was inaccurate in stating that ACC had a legal obligation to inform its clients of the credit – one aspect upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News, broadcast at 6pm on TV3 on 17 April 2009, and repeated on Nightline at 10....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that a 1 News item reporting on then Leader of the Opposition and National Party leader Hon Simon Bridges travelling from Tauranga to Wellington during COVID-19 Level 4 lockdown breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that the item, which was focussed on MPs breaking lockdown rules, was misleading in putting Mr Bridges in that category.  The Authority acknowledged that, during the time of the broadcast, there was confusion surrounding the scope of the rules, particularly as to what constituted an essential service. However, the broadcaster had access to information suggesting Mr Bridges was engaged in an ‘essential service’ and, given the level of harm potentially caused by portraying a senior Member of Parliament as breaking lockdown rules, had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that this particular item did not mislead the public. Upheld: Accuracy No Order...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-182 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

This decision has been amended to remove the names of persons who were not a party to the complaint....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Paul Henry featured an interview with the president of the Police Association about assaults on police and the debate about whether to arm front-line police officers with tasers. Towards the start of the interview, Mr Henry said, ‘The numbers are truly extraordinary, aren’t they? Violent attacks on police officers are definitely going up’. The Authority upheld a complaint that this comment was inaccurate, as the number of assaults on police officers was actually decreasing. However, it did not uphold a complaint that the item was unbalanced, as MediaWorks made reasonable efforts to provide balance on the issue of taser carriage by police within the period of current interest....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – investigated one couple’s practice of grazing cattle along the banks of the Pahaoa River in the Wairarapa – interviewed concerned neighbour, environmental scientist, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and spokesman for Federated Farmers – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – story focused on one couple – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the Riddells were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the story – reporter’s approach unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – legal costs to the complainant $1,670 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 4 February 2009, the host introduced a story, saying: Let’s. . ....

Due to Ms Morris’ membership of the Waitangi Tribunal, and participation in the Tribunal’s Inquiry into the Crown’s Foreshore and Seabed Policy in March 2004, the complainant and the broadcaster were consulted prior to consideration of this complaint by the Authority. Both agreed Ms Morris did not have a conflict of interest. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – segment on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill entitled Your Shore, Our Shore – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – other perspectives acknowledged – wide media coverage of the issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misrepresentations of Court of Appeal decision and Foreshore and Seabed Bill – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumed under Standard 4Order Broadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – report on Crown compensation to Ngati Rua-Nui says many killed at invasion of Parihaka – inaccurate – upheld by broadcaster as breach of standard G1 – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken insufficient OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 1 March 2001 reported on an agreement for an apology and monetary compensation between the Ngati Rua-Nui people of South Taranaki, and the Crown. The reporter concluded the item with the following statement: Several hundred thousand acres were confiscated from Ngati Rua-Nui in the 1860s, and many were killed during the invasion of Parihaka. Colin Robertson and Liam Wright complained separately to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the item was inaccurate. They said there had been no deaths in the invasion of Parihaka....

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Downsize Me! – recommendations on weight loss and nutrition – allegedly inaccurate and misleading Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – "factual programme" in the sense that it reported actual events and offered general information – advice and "scare tactics" presented in personable way – general messages were to eat better, exercise regularly and improve health – viewers would have understood that most of the advice was tailored to the particular participant – however, broadcasters need to take special care when discussing medical conditions – statement about coconut oil misleading – one aspect upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Downsize Me! was a health, diet and exercise programme where overweight people worked for eight weeks to lose weight and reduce health risks. The Tuesday 30 September 2008 episode, broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item discussing copyright in photos – featured a woman who believed a photo she took had been posted on the internet as belonging to someone else – stated that American photographer claimed to have taken the photo – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was misleading in conveying that the woman owned the photo and that Mr Bush had “stolen” it and was claiming it as his own – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair in implying that the complainant did not own the photo – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant sufficiently identifiable from website details – but website and photo in the public domain – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld OrdersSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $1,000 This…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item on formaldehyde levels in imported clothing – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme would have misled and unnecessarily alarmed viewers in its presentation of formaldehyde test results – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $4,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 21 August 2007. The programme discussed the use of formaldehyde, “a highly toxic chemical that can be fatal”, in the manufacture of clothing. The presenter stated that formaldehyde was used to help keep fabric stain-free, wrinkle-free and disinfected....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about NZ Army engineers in Iraq – reference to an article written by the complainant and published in the “Sunday Star-Times” – item’s focus was engineers’ reaction to the article’s claims that their achievements had been exaggerated – complainant alleged that item unfairly represented article, and was inaccurate and unbalancedFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item’s focus was reporting reaction to the article’s claims of exaggerating the achievements of engineers and did not require further balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item inaccurately reported that newspaper article said that the engineers were exaggerating their achievements – not otherwise inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – article ambiguous in parts – unfair to complainant to misreport the exaggeration claims as being made by the engineers – not otherwise unfair – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-133:Associate Minister of Health (Hon Maurice Williamson) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-133 PDF1. 02 MB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-179 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by H M ROMANIUK of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R M McLeod J Withers...

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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – headline summary on the respective National Party and Labour Party plans to provide financial assistance to New Zealanders who lost their jobs as a result of the economic crisis – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement that Labour’s policy applied to anybody who lost their job was inaccurate – headline summary would have misled viewers – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of accuracy No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a round-up of the day’s top stories on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold – no order AppealConsent order – appropriateness of no order(s) being imposed remitted back to the Authority Findings on ReconsiderationNo order appropriate This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player....