Search Rapua

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber, and made unfair and derogatory comments about her duties and her personal attributes. The broadcaster upheld the complaint, and Mr Henry apologised on air a week later. The Authority considered the segment to be a serious breach of standards, but in all the circumstances found the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken) Introduction [1] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber and discussed her position and responsibilities. The presenter also read out excerpts from her job description....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – complainant was convicted of raping and abusing his daughter and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment – subsequent legal dispute between them about ownership of painting – daughter withdrew from proceedings which were resolved in complainant’s favour – item reported that complainant while in prison had then brought private prosecution for fraud against daughter arising from dispute over painting – item reported that daughter unable to get legal aid for painting dispute and required to sell her house – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item not unfair – not upheld The Authority declined to determine aspects of the complaint pursuant to section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA teenager who was reported in a 3 News item as “believed” to have died in a Christchurch house fire (which killed her father, her father’s wife, her grandmother and a boarder), complained that the item was inaccurate, and had “shocked, upset and angered” many of those who knew her. She claimed the item was also unfair, and breached her father’s privacy as well as her own. The Broadcaster’s ResponseCanWest argued that the item was accurate because the report said the identities of the four dead were “believed to be 58-year-old Japanese immigrant Junichi Tomonaga and his wife, his teenage daughter and his mother or mother-in-law”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about suburban brothels – showed hidden camera footage taken inside travel agency – reporter was shown asking teller about sending money back to China and “hiding the money” without any trace – teller agreed that she could do this – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – companies have no right to privacy – teller had no interest in solitude or seclusion at place of employment – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – item not misleading or inaccurate – hidden camera footage portrayed actual events – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – teller not treated unfairly – An Ying “referred to” but not identifiable, therefore broadcaster not required to give an opportunity to comment – use of hidden camera not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter made comments about the nationality of the Governor General – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards warranted more immediate response from broadcaster but remedial action taken in days following broadcast was reasonable – action taken sufficient – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Inside New Zealand: How to Spot a Cult – two-part documentary – spoke to former members of cults – included three former members of Scientology – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Church of Scientology was well informed about the nature of the programmes – Church’s responses were included in the programme – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Inside New Zealand: How to Spot a Cult was a two-part documentary series which was broadcast on TV3 at 9. 30pm on Wednesday 25 November and Wednesday 2 December 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – coverage of the Makara cemetery desecration – graphic beside the news presenter showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol – inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced – complaint upheld by broadcaster – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Action taken – sufficient – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 6 August 2004 dealt with the desecration of Jewish graves in Wellington. [2] The graphic beside the news presenter during the introduction to this item showed the internationally recognised anarchist symbol. [3] There was no suggestion during the news broadcast, other than the graphic, that the anarchist movement was involved in this incident....

ComplaintHolmes Leaders’ Debate – Christian Heritage Party not invited – unbalanced – partial – unfair FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – editorial discretion exercised in balanced and fair way – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaders of eight political parties participated in the Holmes Leaders’ Debate broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 15 July 2002. The participants were chosen on the basis that the parties were represented in the outgoing Parliament. The leaders were questioned about aspects of their party’s policies. [2] The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about its exclusion from the Leaders’ Debate and the following Minor Leaders’ Debate. It said that the broadcaster had acted unfairly in not treating all political parties in the same way....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – Minister of Police had declined to be interviewed – host said that when Cabinet Ministers refused to front up and discuss serious issues, they would receive the “no-show pie” – animation showing a photograph of the Minister of Police with a cream pie being pushed into his face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unfair and in breach of the violence standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to the Minister – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – no issue of violence – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News: Firstline – interview with Ruth Money from Sensible Sentencing Trust regarding a proposed amendment to the Parole Act 2002 – Ms Money expressed her view that the amendment “did not go far enough” and that parole hearings should be abolished altogether – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy and fairnessFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Ms Money’s statements amounted to comment and opinion and were therefore exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – concerns about misleading impression regarding parole board hearing process adequately addressed under controversial issues standard…...

An appeal against this decision was allowed in part in the High Court with the Authority instructed to amend its order: AP158/91 PDF (204. 76 KB)Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-025:Mansell and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-025 PDF683. 79 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] In an election advertisement for the National Party, John Key stated, ‘we’ll start paying off debt’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was misleading because Treasury had forecast that debt would increase until 2018. Election advertisements promoting party policies, by their nature, are not ‘factual’. Viewers understand that they are highly political, often hyperbolic vehicles for advocacy, and are able to form their own views about any particular policy. Viewers would not have been misled. Not Upheld: Election Programmes Subject to Other Standards (Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming), Distinguishing Factual Information from Opinion or Advocacy, Misleading Programmes Introduction [1] An advertisement for the National Party was broadcast on TV3 on 28 August 2014....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a 1News item, reporting on developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, breached the accuracy, balance and fairness standards. The item discussed an increasing number of countries formally recognising Palestine as a state due to Israel’s continuing military action in Gaza, and the possibility of New Zealand following suit. The complainant considered the report cast Israel in a negative light, contained numerous inaccuracies (largely in relation to its description of the geographical situation in the conflict zone), and omitted important information from an Israeli perspective. The Authority found no material inaccuracies or misleading omissions in the report. It found the balance standard was not breached as significant alternative perspectives on the issue were presented, including that of Israel; and the audience could reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage. The fairness standard did not apply....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 10/95 Dated the 23rd day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDWARD and DIANNE BLAND of Huntly Broadcaster THE EDGE (ROCK 93FM) of Hamilton I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint about an interview with National Party MP and Leader of the Opposition Christopher Luxon. The complaint alleged the interview was disrespectful and biased, with the interviewer interrupting and expressing their own political views. The Authority has consistently not upheld complaints of a similar nature, and this complaint did not raise any specific issues which would distinguish it from the previous findings on the same issue. Decline to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Balance (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989)...

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

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...