Search Rapua

ComplaintOne News – item reported Government to pay defence bill for depositions hearing of private prosecution of police officer charged with murder – featured as unusual event whereas complainant claimed that it was standard practice – not consistent with legal principles – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandards 2, 4, 5, and 6 – news selection issue – not broadcasting standards matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Government’s decision to pay the defence costs at the depositions hearing of the private prosecution of Constable Abbott for the murder of Stephen Wallace was reported as a "bolt from the blue" in an item on One News on Saturday 15 June 2002. One News is broadcast daily on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six cafés in Auckland – stated that food sample from Café Cézanne had tested positive for faecal coliforms which “could make you very sick” – sample had been incorrectly labelled and it was later discovered that it did not come from Café Cézanne – in the meantime broadcaster broadcast an apology (in following episode) that did not exclude possibility that sample came from Café Cézanne – both programmes allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – serious allegation that Café Cézanne’s food was contaminated with faecal coliforms was broadcast without verifying or checking results – sample did not come from Café Cézanne – apology was also inaccurate and inadequate to rectify the breach – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not give the complainants a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond because they were not…...

SummaryThe "Bluffer’s Guide" is a regular feature of Ansett Time of Your Life. In the programme broadcast on TV3 on 26 May 1998 at 8. 00pm, it focused on cigar smoking. Mr Pester of Pahiatua complained through the Broadcasting Standards Authority to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the programme glorified cigar smoking in a manner which would be attractive to young people. He argued that TV3 had employed a deceptive programme practice because it encouraged young people to smoke cigars, and that it had failed to be mindful of the effect of the programme on children. In addition, he contended that it had contravened the Smokefree Environments Act 1990. TV3 responded that the programme, while rated G, was aimed at a mature audience. It did not believe that the segment would have appealed to children, and noted that the host did not reinforce the behaviour by smoking herself....

An appeal by Kevin Hackwell against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: AP 212/00 PDF656. 76 KBComplaintAssignment – government defence policy – anti-government – unbalancedFindingsStandard G6 – appropriate to consider implications of defence policy – not unbalanced – majority no upholdStandard G19 – not applicable – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn Assignment programme which examined government policy on defence matters was broadcast on TV One on 4 May 2000 at 8. 30pm. John Urlich and Kevin Hackwell both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the programme. Mr Urlich complained that it was unbalanced and anti-government. He identified a number of instances which he said demonstrated the item’s bias. Mr Hackwell complained that the programme had advocated strongly for the status quo, without providing the balancing argument for a change to a more specialised defence capability....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – two items about a cat captured by complainant who thought it was a stray and took it from West Auckland to Penrose – second Holmes item advised cat found – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and a breach of privacy Eating Media Lunch – rebroadcast of some footage from Holmes – allegedly a breach of privacy FindingsHolmes items: Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 5 (Accuracy) and Guidelines 5a and 5b – no factual errors – item reported that letter of apology received since Holmes involvement, not because of Holmes involvement – not upheld Standard 6 (Fairness) and Guidelines 6a, 6c, 6d, 6f – light-hearted item – no intention to humiliate complainant – not upheld FindingsEating Media Lunch Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – no private facts disclosed – not upheld…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A 3 News item covered a high-profile New Zealand equestrian’s reportedly controversial exclusion from Equestrian Sports New Zealand’s high performance squad. It included an interview with the head of ESNZ, and briefly showed a copy of the equestrian magazine Show Circuit on his desk. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the broadcast breached standards because it wrongly associated Show Circuit with ESNZ. The inclusion of the shot of the magazine was incidental to the story and did not suggest that Show Circuit supported ESNZ, as alleged. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming   Introduction [1] A 3 News item covered a high-profile New Zealand equestrian’s reportedly controversial exclusion from Equestrian Sports New Zealand’s high performance squad....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a ‘crude’ and ‘insulting’ remark made on Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive. The host asked whether Dr Ashley Bloomfield’s ‘sphincter just [tightened]’ to indicate her belief that Dr Bloomfield might be concerned about the results of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. The Authority found the host’s comment was unlikely to disproportionately offend or disturb the audience. The threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to public figures, and the remark did not meet this threshold. The remaining standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Investigator Special: Jesus the Cold Case – documentary maker, Bryan Bruce, gave his perspective on the life and death of Jesus – consulted various experts – challenged traditional Christian view as encapsulated in the gospels – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – issues canvassed in the programme were matters of historical interest as opposed to controversial issues of public importance – authorial documentary approached from perspective of Mr Bruce – viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the commonly accepted view of the gospels – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – reasonable viewers would have understood that the programme consisted of Mr Bruce’s comment and opinion based on his personal research – viewers would not have been misled – given subject matter of documentary the Authority is not…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on verdict in Ewen McDonald murder trial – reporter commented, “You could well be thinking, if he’s not guilty, why hasn’t he walked out these doors behind me and spoken to media?...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SPECTRUM of Nelson Broadcaster BAYS TELEVISION LIMITED of Nelson J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

ComplaintNews item about community parties on New Year’s Eve – complainant named and said to be "spouting lies" and "hadn’t checked the facts" – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 and Principle 6 – subsumed under Principle 5 Principle 5 – any response, including decline to comment, not reported – unfair – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The possibility of three venues for New Year’s Eve party-goers in Central Otago was dealt with in a news item broadcast at 6. 30am, 7. 30am, 8. 30am and midday on 21 March 2003 on Blues Skies FM in Alexandra. The Chairman of one group which had staged a successful street party for five years, expressed his anger at one of the other groups. Naming the other group’s chair, he said that she had not checked the facts and was "spouting" lies....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-090 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WACO COATINGS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint the documentary Web of Chaos breached multiple standards. The complainant alleged the broadcast represented ‘women who like sewing and interior design as extremists’, which was allegedly ‘racist, sexist, anti-Christian and anti-women of Celtic origin’, lacked any balancing comment from women involved in the community, contained multiple inaccuracies, and was unfair. The Authority found the broadcast did not discriminate against or denigrate any of the nominated sections of the community and the broadcast was materially accurate. This was because the relevant comments were not claiming that all people participating in online craft communities were white nationalists, but rather these communities (like many other online communities) were exposing inadvertent users to extremist ideas. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a discussion between the hosts of AM and an interview with Prime Minister Chris Hipkins breached multiple standards for including statements from the hosts questioning the usefulness and purpose of Government inquiries into various sectors. The Authority found the balance and fairness standards were not breached as the interview with Hipkins provided an alternative viewpoint, and allowed Hipkins to comment on the Government’s reasoning for the inquiry. The accuracy standard did not apply, as the comments were analysis, commentary and opinion, and the discrimination and denigration, and offensive and disturbing content standards either were not breached or did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm reporting on a disqualification hearing for a greyhound trainer was inaccurate and unfair. The complainant argued the broadcast’s description of the facts leading to two charges against the trainer (related to failing to ensure the welfare of two dogs), was misleading. The complainant also argued it was unfair to comment on the trainer’s potential disqualification sentence before it had been finalised, impeding the trainer’s ‘right to a fair trial’. The Authority found the broadcast was not materially misleading overall, or reasonable efforts had been made to ensure accuracy, and did not give rise to any unfairness to the trainer. The public interest in the story outweighed the low risk of harm. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint a news report on 1News breached several standards, by using the phrase Hamas ‘fighters’, rather than Hamas ‘terrorists’. The Authority found the choice of word could not reasonably be said to encourage the different treatment of Jewish or Israeli people, devalue their reputation, or embed negative stereotypes about them. Under accuracy, the Authority found the word was not inaccurate, was not material in the context of the broadcast as a whole, and there was no harm at a level justifying limitation of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and editorial independence. The balance and fairness standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Balance and Fairness...