Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about former foster parents who had pleaded guilty to smacking a foster child on the hand with a wooden spoon – had originally faced a number of other abuse charges – CYFS removed two children from their care and said they were no longer suitable foster parents – interviews with former foster parents and CYFS representative – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance because it dealt with the actions of government department charged with the care of vulnerable children – TVNZ not required to detail nature of more serious allegations – not required to give further information about CYFS’ standard processes – item omitted critical information about evidential interviews of children – left viewers without a clear understanding of the reasons behind CYFS’ actions – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

SummaryA news item broadcast on TV3 on 29 June 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm summarised matters raised in a 20/20 programme broadcast the previous evening relating to the dismissal of the choirmaster at St Paul’s Cathedral in Dunedin. It was reported that the choir had returned to the Cathedral to demand the resignation of their Dean. Mr Greet and Mr Barnett complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate. TV3 responded that it was satisfied its report was a fair and accurate summary of the developments in the controversy surrounding the dismissal of the choirmaster which had been the subject of the 20/20 item the previous evening. It declined to uphold the complaints. Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr Greet and Mr Barnett referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-113 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LANCASTER SALES AND SERVICE LIMITED of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – incident involving alleged doctor-on-doctor assault – interviewee commented on profession’s reaction to incident – three complaints – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair to doctor and othersFindings Standard 4 (balance) – unbalanced – Mr Ngaei’s viewpoint not advanced – reasonable efforts to obtain his views not made – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Mr Ngaei – upheld Standard 6 (discrimination) – item did not encourage discrimination against doctors – not upheld Orders$1,700 costs to complainant $2,500 costs to CrownThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Holmes broadcast at 7....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-112 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GREGORY SHAW of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintNine to Noon – Ministry of Health official described as Deputy-Director of Clinical Services and “Disinformation” – unfair – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsPrinciple 4 and Principle 5 – subsumed under Principle 6 Principle 6 – use of word “disinformation” unfair to Ministry and Deputy Director-General – upheld OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Dr Colin Feek, the Ministry of Health’s Deputy Director-General of Clinical Services, was interviewed on Nine to Noon, on National Radio on 10 June 2003 about an audit on the way hospitals treated patients with heart problems. At the conclusion of the interview, he was described as the Deputy Director-General of Clinical Services “and Disinformation”. [2] The Ministry of Health complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was inaccurate, unbalanced, and unfair to both the Ministry and Dr Feek....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Over two evenings, on 20 and 21 January 2018, Newshub reported on the delayed launch of a rocket from the Māhia Peninsula, due to a boat being in the exclusion zone around the launch site. The first item strongly implied that Hastings District Councillor Damon Harvey was responsible for the delayed launch, referring to a tweet, featuring a photo of the launch site, that the reporter said was tweeted by Mr Harvey ‘around the same time’ as the launch delay. The second item included a short comment from an interview with Mr Harvey. The Authority found parts of these broadcasts were inaccurate and misleading, and were unfair to Mr Harvey....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Campbell Live covered a story about an eader (a pit for raw milk waste) in the town of Eltham in Taranaki that was allegedly making local residents ill. The South Taranaki District Council complained that the item was inaccurate and unfair. The Authority found that this was an important story which carried high public interest and that much of it was accurate and well-reported. Nevertheless, a number of statements conveying the gravity of the problem with the eader did not have a sufficient basis and were overblown, which was misleading and unfair. Accordingly the Authority upheld some aspects of the complaint. Upheld: Accuracy, FairnessNo OrderIntroduction[1] Campbell Live covered a story about an eader (a pit for raw milk waste) in the town of Eltham in Taranaki that was allegedly making local residents ill....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-037 Decision No: 1998-038 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MANU CADDIE of Wellington Broadcaster CHANNEL Z Wellington S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 62/95 Dated the 6th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ERNSLAW ONE LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Rotten Shame – investigated systematic failures in the building industry that led to the leaky homes crisis – reporter door-stepped building inspector who had inspected a house eleven years earlier which had since been demolished – portion of the interview included in the programme – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr George by door-stepping him was unfair – broadcaster’s action in upholding the complaint and apologising to the complainant in its decision was inadequate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – other aspects of the programme were not unfair to the complainant – item focused on systematic failures which led to the leaky homes crisis rather than on the…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

SummaryA radio station announcer, claiming he was doing a survey on STDs, telephoned a woman and asked a number of personal and intimate questions. The call was broadcast live on The Edge on 30 November 1998 at about 4. 00pm. J, the woman who received the call, had identified herself using her first name and employer’s name. She complained to the station that the call was a serious invasion of her privacy as she was never told that the caller was from a radio station, or that it was being broadcast live. J said the comments ranged from being personal to obscene, and cited some examples. When the matter was referred to the station initially, J received an apology both from the station manager and the announcer....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, and in breach of privacy and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standards 4 (balance) – not upheld Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) – majority uphold Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] RT made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV One’s Sunday programme at 7. 30pm on 1 July 2007. It was alleged that the programme breached Standards 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code. [2] The complainant referred the complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show, Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME, having upheld Mrs Stokes’ complaint under the fairness and privacy standards, was insufficient. The broadcast, and particularly the hosts’ deceptive conduct, represented a significant breach of broadcasting standards and a lack of understanding of an individual’s fundamental right to fair treatment and to privacy....

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.…...