Search Rapua

SummaryA Frontline programme broadcast on 12 September 1993 focused on the electricity pricingarrangements between Comalco (NZ) Ltd and ECNZ and raised questions about the ratescharged to domestic and large commercial consumers. Comalco (NZ) Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd thatthe item lacked objectivity and left misleading and damaging impressions. In particular itobjected to the implication that Comalco's electricity was subsidised by domestic consumers,and to the suggestion that its recent pricing agreement with ECNZ was to be kept secret soas to avoid embarrassing the government in the pre-election period. Maintaining that an investigation of the pricing arrangements was in the public interest,TVNZ rejected all aspects of the complaint. It argued that the question about whether thearrangement was a subsidy or a discount was balanced by comment from Comalcoofficials and from energy analysts....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

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

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....

ComplaintDestiny Television: Homosexuality, Religion and God – series of six programmes delivering religious sermons – denigration of and discrimination against homosexual and transsexual people – offensive – inconsistent with legislation – errors of fact – not impartial – TVNZ upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from repeat broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspect upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings(1) Action taken on Standard 6 – insufficient – uphold (2) Standard 2 Guideline 2a – did not involve principle of law – no uphold (3) Standard 4, Standard 5 – not relevant – not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – no uphold OrderComplaints referred back to broadcaster under s. 13(1)(c) for further consideration of action to be taken This headnote does not form part of the decision....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-24 PDF82. 96 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Complaint During a Close Up item about the "naming and shaming" of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated but she was "unmasked" and named later in the item. David and Heather Green objected to the woman's treatment. They said the item had imposed an extra penalty over and above that imposed in the courtroom, and was unfair....

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…...