Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-054 Decision No: 1998-055 Dated the 21st day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by LINDA TAYLOR-DEAN of Whitianga and THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL Broadcaster COROMANDEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD trading as COROMANDEL FM S R Maling (Chairperson) L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryBlack Spots. White Crosses, a documentary programme broadcast on TV3 on 12 November 1998 at 8. 30pm, focussed on some factors which contributed to road fatalities on the Auckland-Waikato Highway. An interview with a truck driver who had been involved in a collision, and footage of the accident scene including some photographs, were shown when examining one accident in which a driver and his baby daughter had been killed. CC and DD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) about the use of these photographs. They maintained that some aspects of the footage and the commentary were untrue, and breached their and their family’s privacy. CC also complained to TV3 Network Services Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was untrue in part, unfair, and intrusive and distressing. TV3 responded that the programme had increased public understanding of road fatalities, and used publicly-available facts....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 71 /94 Dated the 22nd day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH HON JENNY SHIPLEY Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 151/95 Decision No: 152/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by JOHANNA KOSTER of Christchurch Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

ComplaintHolmes – item about eviction of tenants behind in payments – distressing situation – complaint that broadcaster failed to show discretion and sensitivity FindingsStandard 6 and Guidelines 6b and 6e – breach occurs when Standard contravened, not Guideline – Guideline 6f also relevant to decision on Standard 6 – tenants not dealt with fairly – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the Decision Summary [1] The eviction of tenants who had fallen behind in a rent-to-buy agreement was shown in an item broadcast on Holmes at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2003. The landlady explained that she had taken the action to protect her investment. [2] Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it had not shown discretion and sensitivity in a distressing situation in which there was no apparent public interest....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-2035 PDF1. 53 MBComplaint under s....

Summary A soccer game between Croatia and Yugoslavia ended in a riot, according to a news item on One Network News broadcast on TV One on 19 August 1999 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. The footage which accompanied the item showed baton-wielding police, players and spectators fighting on the soccer field. Gordon Sunde complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had been fabricated and was totally misleading. The game, he said, had been played without incident. The video clip shown related to a game which had been played between the same two countries in 1991 and had no relationship to the one being reported. He sought an apology and correction. TVNZ responded to the complaint informally and advised that a correction would be prepared for broadcast. It explained that the footage had been used by mistake and apologised to Mr Sunde....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-037:Ngaei and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1991-037 PDF727. 04 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-059:Te Reo Takiwa O Ngatihine and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-059 PDF686. 17 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-130 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HON MURRAY McCULLY Minister of Housing Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-035 Decision No: 1998-036 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION (Wanganui Conservancy) and W F CARLIN of Wanganui Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Illegal New Zealand – episode looked at the illegal trading of guns in New Zealand – reporter used hidden camera to record footage at a gun show in Auckland – footage included conversation between the undercover reporter and complainant – complainant’s face not pixellated – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfairly presented complainant in a negative light – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Illegal New Zealand was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Thursday 9 July 2009....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 17/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by W J COWAN of Dunedin Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported that a Fijian island used by a New Zealand production company to film the television series Treasure Island, was being “trashed” – interviewed two men who had seen rubbish on the island – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no reasonable basis upon which to conclude that the rubbish was left by Treasure Island production – broadcaster has not provided any evidence to support claims made in the item – inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to production company – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....