Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an interview between host Kim Hill and John Tamihere, Chief Executive of Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust and the Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency, on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report breached broadcasting standards. It found the interview did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency, noting that the robust nature of the interview was in line with audience expectations of RNZ and Hill. It also found the balance standard was not breached on the basis that Tamihere was given sufficient time to express his views and, given other media coverage, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of other perspectives regarding how to best increase Māori vaccination rates. It further found that Tamihere was not treated unfairly during the interview. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Balance and Fairness...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 119/94 Dated the 24th day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CREDO SOCIETY INCORPORATED of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-111 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEVE BISHOP of Albany TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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…...

Diane Musgrave declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint....

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....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Tapu Misa declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint....

ComplaintOne News – item disclosed details of murder victim's private life – information allegedly gained by deception – use insensitive to familyFindings Standard 6 and Guidelines 6c and 6e – conflicting accounts about provision of information – decline to determine – s11(b)This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Details of the private life of murder victim Mark Burns were broadcast in an item on One News at 6. 00pm on 7 September 2003. [2] Irene Burns, an aunt of the deceased, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the journalist who had contacted her about Mark's death had reported information in the item which she had asked not to be broadcast. [3] In response, TVNZ contended that the accounts of the events from the complainant and the reporter could not be reconciled....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

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(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – host expressed view that medical personnel were deliberately overmedicating patients with dementia causing them to die – complainant called station to challenge host’s comments but was cut off – host used the term “zombie” to refer to person with dementia – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – broadcasters have the right to screen calls, as a matter of editorial discretion, provided they comply with the requirements of fairness – host did not make any derogatory or abusive comments but simply chose not to engage with the complainant which was not unexpected in the context of talkback radio and the programme – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host did not make unqualified statements of fact (guideline 5b) – programme was not inaccurate or…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-003:Ritchie and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-003 PDF364. 95 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported new details relating to a New Zealand man who raped and murdered a hitchhiker from the Czech Republic – interviewee and reporter used the term “nutters” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – “nutters” used to refer to person who is dangerous and deranged, and was not intended to comment on people with mental illness – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – viewers would have understood intended meaning of “nutters” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed brief visual overview of New Zealand flags – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – complaint frivolous and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Items broadcast on Campbell Live on TV3 at 7pm on 22 and 23 September 2011, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag, which had been a topic of discussion during the Rugby World Cup....