Search Rapua

ComplaintOne News – interview with Chief Ombudsman about tax-payer funded sex-change operation where health bureaucracy acted unfairly – incorrect impression portrayed of ombudsman’s decision contrary to agreement before interview – unfair – distortion Interlocutory Decision 2001-ID001 – order to TVNZ to supply field tape to the Authority Interlocutory Decision 2001-ID002 – order to supply field tape to the complainant FindingsStandards G4 and G19 – item explained issue dealt with in Chief Ombudsman’s ruling – extract did not distort Chief Ombudsman’s comments – Chief Ombudsman not dealt with unfairly – no uphold Standard G1 – item’s introduction inaccurate – upholdNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ruling by the Ombudsman that a person seeking a taxpayer-funded sex-change operation had been treated unfairly by the health bureaucracy was dealt with in an item on One News, broadcast on TV One between 6. 00–7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about the experience of a man who purchased the “Hire A Hubby” franchise for the suburb of Greenlane in Auckland – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate or misleading – Target mentioned that there had been a settlement – the settlement was not the focus of the item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – fairness arguments relied on the programme being misleading – FBL was treated fairly and given a fair opportunity to comment – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 29 April 2008, covered the story of Colin Hinds and his experience as a Hire A Hubby franchisee....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-125 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaint by MINISTER OF HOUSING (HON MURRAY McCULLY) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary Auckland’s controversial Britomart development was the subject of discussion on John Banks’ talkback programme on Radio Pacific broadcast on 30 July 1999 between 6. 30–7. 30am. Mr Banks, an opponent of the project, suggested that the developer, Mr Lu, should return to his home country in Asia. He said "we don’t want to pour our money down your loo Mr Lu. " Savoy Equities Ltd, on behalf of Mr Lu, complained to Radio Pacific Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments made were personally abusive and insulting, and incited hostility towards Chinese and Singaporeans. It contended that the host’s remarks were aggravated by what it called his ignorance of the facts. Radio Pacific responded that Mr Lu had been offered the opportunity to respond on-air at the time, but had declined....

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item looked at the different road options for Wellington including upgrading State Highway 1 or creating a road through Transmission Gully – stated American army had offered to create the Gully road in 1940s – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) Broadcasting Act 1989 whether Americans made an offer to construct a road through Transmission Gully – item impartial – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item was an update on current situation – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item entitled “Fair Game” explored the question of whether fish feel pain – focussed on big game fishing – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – significant viewpoints presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate on points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to deep-sea fishermen – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 18 October 2004, was entitled “Fair Game” and explored the question of whether fish feel pain. The item centred on big game fishing and the introduction said: Bullfighting, cock fighting, bear baiting. Some cultures have delighted in prolonging the torment of animals, under the guise of some sort of noble contest....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion about taxi safety – referred to taxi drivers as “cabbies” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – “cabbies” not pejorative – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – broadcaster not required to present views of non-Taxi Federation companies – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – did not imply that non-Taxi Federation members were at the “bottom end” of the industry – not unfair – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – programme was ambiguous as to whether Taxi Federation represented all companies – not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-026–027:New Zealand Business Roundtable and Treasury and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-026, 1990-027 PDF3. 73 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-008:Cook Islands Pearls Ltd and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-008 PDF982. 08 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-115:Tawhai and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-115 PDF300. 14 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Jay-Jay, Dom & Randell, the hosts discussed their conversation with a guest the previous day who was described as a successful voice coach, and who gave tips about putting on a ‘sexy voice’. One of the hosts prank called two phone sex chat lines and spoke to the operators to see whether they used a ‘sexy voice’. One of the operators he spoke with was the complainant, who discussed practical aspects of the service, including how calls were conducted and paid for. A distinctive sound could be heard in the background of the call. The Authority upheld a complaint from the operator that this broadcast breached her privacy and was unfair....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint reported on tensions between the Horowhenua Rowing Club and certain local Māori residents over the future of the club’s use of the building next to Lake Horowhenua. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The item carefully conveyed a complex issue, was not factually inaccurate and would not have misled viewers in any material respect. While the conflict surrounding the rowing club’s presence at Lake Horowhenua is a controversial issue of public importance, the item included the viewpoints of both parties and was sufficiently balanced. The item did not treat the nominated individuals unfairly, as they were not criticised and had a reasonable opportunity to give their views....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Prime News item reported on the trial of a former Nazi guard at Auschwitz and referred to the camp as a ‘Polish camp’. The complainant alleged this statement was inaccurate because it was not a ‘Polish camp’, but was rather a Nazi camp located in Poland. The Authority recognised that the labelling of concentration camps as part of the Nazi regime remains a sensitive issue and one of historical importance, which broadcasters should be mindful of when choosing the language to be used. Nevertheless, in the context of the item the Authority did not consider that viewers would have been misled. Not Upheld: Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Prime News reported on the trial of a former Nazi guard as follows: A former Auschwitz guard has gone on trial in Germany for 170,000 counts of accessory to murder. ....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A 3 News item reported on a charge of offensive language laid against a police woman, following an incident between her and a taxi driver. The item showed excerpts of the taxi’s security footage and contained interviews with the taxi company’s managing director and office manager who were critical of the police and considered assault charges should have been laid. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item prejudiced the police woman’s right to a fair hearing and that it was inaccurate and unfair. There was high public interest in the item, the item was largely presented from the perspective of the interviewees and the taxi company, and it did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote criminal activity....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a broadcast of The Project discussing multiple musicians’ backlash to podcaster Joe Rogan, which mentioned his use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, breached the fairness standard. The Authority found Rogan was not treated unfairly in the broadcast and, if any harm had arisen from the broadcast, it did not meet the threshold for regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Fairness...