Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Item on 3 News focussing on the sale of imported jade marketed as New Zealand pounamu – complainant’s shop identified – interior of shop shown in hidden camera sequence – unrelated shop assistant shown – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under fairness Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed under fairness Standard 6 (fairness) – shop clearly identified – no opportunity given to comment – hidden filming unjustified – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News, broadcast at 6pm on 21 September 2004, contained an item reporting on moves taken by Ngai Tahu to control the marketing of pounamu (New Zealand greenstone). The item alleged that overseas jade was being passed off as pounamu....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

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”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

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 –…...

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The AM Show, host Duncan Garner and then Newshub political editor Patrick Gower discussed various policies the new Labour Government was considering implementing, as well as legislation it planned to change or repeal. Discussing the ‘three strikes’ law, Mr Gower referred to one of the complainants, Mr Garrett, who was involved in introducing the law, and stated, ‘turned out that he had been stealing dead babies’ identities himself before he came into Parliament’. Mr Garner later clarified that it was ‘one dead baby’. The Authority upheld three complaints that the segment was inaccurate and unfair to Mr Garrett. While the broadcaster acknowledged the statement was inaccurate, the Authority found Mr Garner’s correction was dismissive and perfunctory, and insufficient to correct the error....