Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – story about “moon man” Ken Ring and his claims he predicted Christchurch earthquakes – John Campbell interviewed Mr Ring – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ring was treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – Mr Ring’s predictions were a controversial issue of public importance – his views were presented within the period of current interest in other media coverage – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainants did not specify which aspects of the programme they considered to be inaccurate, or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintFair Go – rare breeds of sheep put in care as owner had cancer – organiser of care took two flocks herself – owner sought to recover sheep – care organiser believed she owned sheep – no contract – inaccurate – unclear – unbalanced – editing which distorted FindingsStandard G4 – inadequate opportunity to respond – uphold Standards G1, G3, G6, G7, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary David Tuart, an owner of some rare sheep species, required treatment for cancer. Dr Beverley Trowbridge, a fellow breeder of rare sheep species, arranged for his flocks to be distributed among other farmers. After Mr Tuart had been treated, Dr Trowbridge refused to return some of the sheep as she believed that she had been given ownership of them....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Noise Control – followed noise control officers working in Auckland – one officer was called to a 50th birthday party – host of the party shown arguing with him – allegedly in breach of fairness standard FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and her participation – combination of factors resulted in complainant being treated unfairly – upheld OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainant $7,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Noise Control, a reality programme following noise control officers in Auckland, was broadcast on TV3 at 8pm on Monday 2 August 2010. In one segment, the programme’s narrator stated that “noise control officer [name] is on his way to a 50th birthday bash in Ponsonby”....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – breach of privacy – using the airwaves to ridicule and denigrate – unfair – unjust Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) s. 4(1)(c) – privacy – no identification – no uphold (3) Principle 5 – 6 December broadcast – no uphold11 December broadcast (6. 19am) – threatening and intimidatory – uphold11 December broadcast (8. 35am) – suggesting someone has mental problems unfair – uphold12 December broadcast (6. 22am) – no uphold12 December broadcast (6. 54am) – no uphold13 December broadcast – abusive and threatening – uphold20 December broadcast – no uphold7 January broadcast – no uphold Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $250 reimbursement of reasonable legal costs and expenses This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] R K Watkins complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989House of Noizz – host made derogatory comments about “an ex-member of the family”, the mother of his named nephew – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host abused his position by making comments that were insulting and abusive to AB – AB made repeated attempts to stop the content being broadcast – AB treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – AB identifiable for the purposes of the privacy standard because limited group of people who could potentially identify her may not have been aware of any family matter – however host’s comments were his opinion and did not amount to private facts – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – hosts’ comments would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context –…...