Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-127 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK KEARNEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary A news item broadcast on One Network News on 14 April 1998 between 6. 00-7. 00pm referred to some of the recommendations in the government’s review on firearms. It was reported that members of the anti-gun lobby were dissatisfied with the government’s lack of progress in implementing the recommendations. Paul Sheehan of Christchurch complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the report on the recommendation to buy back semi-automatic weapons was inaccurate and misleading. In addition he complained about what he called the "incorrect implication" that gun laws had not been tightened, and the failure to balance the discussion by including a person from the pro-gun lobby. TVNZ advised that it upheld the aspect of the complaint regarding the recommendation to buy back semi-automatic weapons....

SummaryAn item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 12 February 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm, referred to a contest "to conceive the first child of the new millennium". The presenter commented on "this first child of 2000", in describing the contest. Mr Butchart complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the statements were totally untrue. He said the next millennium began with the beginning of 2001, just as the first millennium began with 0001, and the second began with 1001. He sought a correction of what he called the untrue statements. TVNZ responded that it was accurate to reflect the fact that by broad popular consensus, the world (or that part of it which used the Christian calendar) would mark the birth of the new millennium as midnight passed on the last day of 1999. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item explained where bank loans come from – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item gave accurate description of how bank loans are created – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 20 October 2008, was introduced as follows: The global credit crunch is forcing more governments to prop up their banks and guarantee borrowing. So what does that mean for New Zealanders trying to get a loan? In tonight’s special report we send Garth Bray to find out where the money you borrow comes from. [2] Reporting from a kitchen, Mr Bray offered the following explanation: Think of a bank loan like baking a cake....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Birdland – presenter Jeremy Wells looked at birdlife in New Zealand – visited a weka farm in Southland – was shown caring for pet mice then releasing them to be eaten by weka – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – guideline 9d – animals badly treated – gratuitous and not justified by context – broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 9 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Birdland, a locally produced wildlife programme hosted by comedian Jeremy Wells, was broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Saturday 14 November 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reference to the “Labour Government” – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme informationFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – “Labour-led” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld – majority considers “Labour” government acceptable shorthand – not upheld Standard 5 (fairness) – no issue of fairness arises – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] TV One broadcast an item on Close Up on 21 July 2005 at 7pm. During the course of a political interview, the presenter used the term “Labour Government” to refer to the Government. Complaint [2] Vivienne Shepherd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the term “Labour Government” was inaccurate, unfair and in breach of standards relating to programme information. She noted that the government was made up of a Labour-Progressive Coalition....

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person flying New Zealand flag at home in dispute with neighbours – complainants who are neighbours named and their home shown – complainants have long history of community service – private facts disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (Privacy) Privacy Principles (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) – dispute about flag had been heard in the District Court – accordingly not private – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A dispute between Mr Brian McGinty of Orewa and his neighbours, including Sir Ross and Lady Jansen, was dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 18 March 2004 beginning at 7. 00pm. The dispute was about Mr McGinty’s neighbours objecting to his desire to fly a New Zealand flag on his property....

Complaint Holmes – series of items on the "brain drain" – Richard Poole – newspaper advertisement – Business Roundtable backing – unbalanced – news source lacked integrity FindingsStandard G6 – items lacked balance – broadcaster not impartial – Poole’s integrity not forcefully challenged – uphold Standard G15 – Poole an "information source" as required by standard – broadcaster failed to ascertain adequately his integrity/reliability – uphold OrdersBroadcast of statement$2,000 costs to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items broadcast on the Holmes show on TV One on 4, 5 and 6 October 2000 dealt with a perceived "brain drain" whereby young, educated New Zealanders were allegedly leaving New Zealand permanently for better jobs and an enhanced lifestyle overseas. Holmes is broadcast between 7. 00pm and 7. 30pm on weekdays....

SummaryA political advertisement for the ACT party broadcast on 23 November 1999 at 6. 51am referred to its policy to resolve all Treaty claims. Both ACT’s and National’s policies for resolving Treaty matters were referred to at various times during the election campaign. William Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was responsible for disseminating incorrect and unconstitutional information which would have misled and confused the public. He emphasised that Treaty matters were not for political parties to decide, and pointed to historical evidence which he said supported his view. He noted that the point was now before the Court of Appeal for adjudication. TVNZ noted that the substance of the complaint was very similar to another lodged by the same complainant, and that it had not been upheld when it was referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – satirical item reported on marketing strategy to enhance Palmerston North’s image as a visitor destination – included file footage of clock tower and other buildings – footage taken prior to $24 million redevelopment – allegedly in breach of accuracy standard FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – file footage was extremely brief – not a material point of fact – would not have misled viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A satirical item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on Friday 1 October 2010, entitled “Worst Town”, reported on an initiative by Palmerston North City Council to improve the city’s image by marketing its top seven destinations. The presenter introduced the item as follows: You remember comedian [name] branded it ‘suicide capital of New Zealand’....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – graphic “Election 2011” during election coverage included ticked blue box – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues) – use of the logo did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – broadcaster entitled to editorial discretion to use standard graphics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During One News election coverage broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 18 October 2011, a logo was displayed stating “Election 2011”, which included a blue box with a white tick mark....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – guest presenter commented, in relation to web video of children’s television presenter Roger Waters, “suddenly there’s LSD in the water” – allegedly in breach of law and order, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – presenter’s comment was brief and light-hearted – viewers would not have been encouraged to break the law – children would not have understood the comment – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comment would not have distressed or alarmed viewers – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – comment was silly and oblique – children would not have appreciated its meaning, and would not have been encouraged to take LSD – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-103:Thompson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-103 PDF343. 63 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-060–062:Sharp, Nelson and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-060, 1992-061, 1992-062 PDF858. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-014:Housing Corporation of New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-014 PDF528. 83 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-001:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-001 PDF280. 04 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]My Kitchen Rules showed the contestants shopping at a Countdown supermarket in Christchurch, in which the complainant was briefly visible in the background. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the footage of the complainant breached her privacy. The footage was extremely fleeting and she would have been identifiable to only a very limited group of people, paying close attention to the footage. The complainant's whereabouts were not a private fact because she had voluntarily disclosed this on social and professional networking sites and this information, along with her employment at the Countdown store, were disclosed in a press release. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] During My Kitchen Rules, a competitive cooking show, the contestants were filmed shopping at a supermarket in Christchurch. The complainant, CE, was shown very briefly in the background....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that featuring Mongrel Mob gang member Harry Tam as an interviewee on Breakfast breached the discrimination and denigration and balance standards. The complainant considered the choice of interviewee was harmful to people affected by Tam and gang-related crime. The Authority found the interview did not breach the discrimination and denigration standard, noting it was not a breach of broadcasting standards to include Tam purely on the basis of his background as a gang member. It further found no breach of the balance standard as the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives on the issue being discussed during the interview. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...