Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-049 Decision No: 1997-050 Dated the 21st day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CAPITAL COAST HEALTH (2) Broadcasters RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED and THE RADIO NETWORK LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary An item on Teletext reported on the death of a man from head injuries which he had sustained the previous day when visiting a motor cycle club. It also reported that three men who were at the scene "when he was beaten" were being interviewed. Ms MacDonald complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item, which she said was broadcast on 7 September 1999, was fabricated and totally wrong. As the ex-wife of the dead man and on behalf of his two young sons, she said they had been devastated by the report. She sought a correction from the broadcaster. TVNZ responded that "a second news item following the autopsy" had not been published because of editorial pressures. It agreed that a later explanation should have been aired, and advised Ms MacDonald that it had been broadcast on Teletext on 10 September....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – 24 December item interviewed woman whose husband was killed by a drunk driver – 7 January item spoke to youths appearing in court after being arrested for drink-driving – both items allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items were straightforward news reports – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – not misleading to omit discussion of the points raised by the complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item and follow-up item reported on SPCA seizing neglected horses from Douglas Williamson’s farm – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled by either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Williamsons were well aware of the nature of the programmes and were given a fair opportunity to comment – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Tuesday 30 March 2010, was introduced by the presenter saying, “Tonight we’re exclusively with the SPCA and police as they seize dozens of neglected horses from a Christchurch farm. ” The presenter said: . . ....

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…...

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 sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about the Teachers Council registering people with convictions – referred to the case of a high school teacher who had been “convicted of supplying P to four students” – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 2 – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while item was ambiguous as to whether Mr Arthur supplied P to his own students, it was inaccurate to state that he supplied P to students – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to state that Mr Arthur supplied P to students – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the 'three strikes' legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaintFindingsStandard 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 – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunrise – item featured a woman who ran a sanctuary for ex-battery hens – included footage of caged hens – woman described condition of hens when they arrived at her property – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item focused on the experience of one woman – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement about uric acid presented as fact – inaccurate but immaterial in context of human interest story – point was that chickens were in poor condition as a result of being caged – not misleading to use footage of battery hens – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – industry not an individual or organisation taking part or referred to – complainant did not take part and was not referred to – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme informationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed about an identifiable person – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item interviewed Christchurch women who wanted to cancel their gym contracts due to the closure or relocation of premises – reported that Configure Express Northlands had relocated but that members could not cancel their contracts without incurring financial loss – barrister gave legal advice that the contracts had been frustrated and were unenforceable – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item contained comments from two women which suggested their issues related solely to relocation, that the gym refused to refund them and that they would be significantly out of pocket – omitted important information about the women’s individual circumstances – impression not mitigated by opportunity given to the complainant to respond to the issues – reasonable to expect Fair Go to adhere to the same high standards the programme imposes on others – complainant…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Karere – item reported on the alleged closure of Whakatane Hospital’s Microbiology Department and the movement of all microbiology services to Tauranga – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was inaccurate and misleading in creating the impression that Whakatane Hospital’s Microbiology Department was closing down and all microbiology testing services were being moved to Tauranga – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Te Karere, broadcast on TV One on 4 October 2011, reported on the alleged closure of Whakatane Hospital’s Microbiology Department and the movement of all microbiology services to Tauranga....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-161:Baby Relax (NZ) Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-161 PDF1. 3 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-030:Female Images and Representation in Sport Taskforce and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-030 PDF652. 8 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on water leak in West Auckland – stated that Watercare had failed to respond to complaints about water leak – interviewed representative from Watercare – showed person drinking water which had come from storm-water drain – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness and children’s interests FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created impression that complaints made to Watercare and that Watercare failed to respond to complaints – Watercare and council separate organisations – item inaccurate and misleading – however, in light of factual background, broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure item accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Watercare invited to appear on Close Up with regard to complaint made 6 November – Watercare given sufficient opportunity to check records given nature of allegations made against it – not upheld…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – discussed “the model who can’t go to fashion week because she’s too big” – interviewed the model and her mother as well as the manager of her modelling agency – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created clear impression that Nova was not putting forward the model for work because of her hip size – viewers would have been misled by the omission of other reasons including the model’s refusal to work for Nova – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not deny that Nova’s manager explained the other reasons in his interview – those reasons were not included in the story – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on one individual – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form…...