Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-145 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FR FRANK DOWNS of Turangi Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Q+A discussing the lack of diversity among the National Party’s then top-12 Members of Parliament. In the segment, panellist Laila Harre commented, ‘the whole front kind of line-up looks like they’ve had a bit of an accident with the bleach’. The complaint was that this comment was inappropriate, unprofessional and racist. The Authority found the comment did not threaten community standards of taste and decency, or encourage discrimination or denigration of any section of the community, in the context of a political discussion in the public interest. The remaining standards complained about either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-090 Dated the 17th day of July 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDWAR DINKHA of Auckland Broadcaster ACCESS COMMUNITY RADIO AUCKLAND INC S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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...

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....

Summary An item on Fair Go reported on a dart-throwing competition which had been won by an Auckland man. The competition had been organised by a promoter, who had arranged insurance for the event with his United States principal. After the competition had been won, the principal refused to accept the claim, asserting the winner’s throw had been wind-assisted. The item suggested the wind would not necessarily have assisted the winner. It also suggested that a competition clause excluding "assistance" for dart throwing had been utilised by the promoter to escape his liability to the winner. The item was broadcast on TV One on 21 April 1999 commencing at 7. 30pm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-514 PDF428. 08 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – three items discussing proposal by Wellington City Council to scrap free parking – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Principles 5 and 6Principle 5 (fairness) – Wellington City Council treated unfairly – upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – items left the impression that the Council was considering scrapping free weekend parking – inaccurate – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] On 20 April 2007, the presenter of Radio New Zealand National’s Morning Report programme, Sean Plunket, commented that the Wellington City Council was “looking at scrapping its free weekend and evening parking in the city”. He said: Retailers are furious....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item showed autopsy photographs of child who had been beaten to death – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness, programme classification, children’s interests, and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased individuals – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard does not apply to deceased individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – standard does not apply to unclassified news programmes – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently mindful of the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised care and discretion in broadcasting the photographs – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – episode devoted to controversy about Meningococcal B vaccine and immunisation campaign – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – a range of significant views advanced about a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies and not misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – taking into account the format of programme, panel member Ron Law treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The controversy about the Meningococcal B vaccine and the current immunisation campaign was dealt with during an entire episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 July 2005. The item included interviews undertaken in Norway at the laboratory that developed the vaccine on which the New Zealand vaccine was based....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Asia Down Under and One News – One News item replayed significant footage screened on Asia Down Under earlier in the morning – programmes addressed issue of need for regulation of immigration consultants – profiled situation of Korean family, the Yangs, who were seeking permanent residency in New Zealand – outlined Yangs’ dealings with immigration consultancy firm Wasan International Co Ltd and its director Edward Kang – discussed high fees charged and lack of success in their applications to date – Asia Down Under team arrived unannounced at Wasan Ltd’s offices and requested interview with Mr Kang – used comments on wider issue from Immigration Minister Paul Swain – used comments from representative of New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment – Asia Down Under reported police and NZAMI investigations of Wasan Ltd – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance)…...

Complaint Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club – clips of violent behaviour – breach of good taste – threatened standards of law and order – racist – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children – excessive violence – Prime upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspects upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings (1) action taken on Standards 2, 7 and 10 – action taken insufficient – uphold(2) Standard 1 – context – upholdStandard 6 – not unfair to South American Indians – no upholdStandard 9 – unsuitable for child viewers – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 October 2002....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME in response to a breach of the fairness standard during an episode of Heather du Plessis-Allan Drive was insufficient. The complaint related to an interview with a 16-year-old climate activist about the Schools Strike for Climate movement, and the group’s key demands. During the interview, the interviewee admitted she had recently travelled to Fiji, despite one of the group’s demands being a ban on ‘unnecessary air travel’. This resulted in the host hysterically laughing at, and teasing the interviewee for over a minute. The broadcaster conceded in light of the interviewee’s age and potential vulnerability, the segment breached the fairness standard. The Authority determined it too would have found a breach of the fairness standard, but in the circumstances considered the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient to address the breach....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

A segment on The Project reported on ‘hateful attacks’ occurring during Pride month, including claims of discrimination at Bethlehem College (and the Ministry of Education’s announcement it will investigate the issue) and the burning down of a Rainbow Youth centre in Tauranga. The segment included an interview with a rainbow activist who considered ‘extremist Christians’ had burnt the centre down. The presenters discussed the issue following the report and noted they hoped the investigation would bring about ‘some change in a place that really needs it. ’ The complainant considered the segment breached various standards as the cause of the fire was under investigation at the time of the broadcast, and the College was portrayed unfairly. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the relevant comments did not reach the high threshold justifying a restriction on freedom of expression....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an episode of New Zealand Today. The complaint was that an interviewee was treated unfairly, and the segment discriminated against and denigrated the elderly. Noting that comments concerning the interviewee were based on his individual actions and views (rather than his status as ‘elderly’) and that the discrimination and denigration standard is not intended to prevent the broadcast of genuine expressions of comment, legitimate humour or satire, the Authority found no breach of that standard. In the context, the Authority also found the interviewee was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a clip of members of Action Zealandia shown in the documentary Patrick Gower: On Hate breached the fairness standard. The clip, approximately four seconds long, showed several unidentifiable members walking with a flag bearing Action Zealandia’s symbol. The complainant alleged that the broadcast unfairly associated the group with terrorism, and that Action Zealandia should have been given the opportunity to comment. The Authority considered the group’s participation was minor in the context of the broadcast. The broadcaster was therefore not required to inform Action Zealandia that the clip would be featured. It further found that the broadcaster was not obliged to give Action Zealandia an opportunity to comment as part of the documentary. Not Upheld: Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints relating to a news item reporting on ANZ increasing mortgage interest rates, which showed a brief exchange between National Party Finance Spokesperson Nicola Willis and Finance Minister Hon Grant Robertson during Question Time in Parliament. The complainants alleged the broadcast breached the accuracy and fairness standards as the broadcaster edited the footage of Robertson’s response to Willis’s question to make him seem unsympathetic and evasive. The Authority found the way in which the broadcast was edited was not likely to give the impression that Robertson did not fully address Willis’s question, and that Robertson was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness...