Search

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Truth Radio – host made statements about ChildFund and other child sponsorship organisations – allegedly inaccurateFindings Principle 6 (accuracy) – comments made by host were clearly distinguishable as opinion – accuracy standard did not apply – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] During an item broadcast on Radio Pacific’s Truth Radio programme on 28 March 2007, the host John Banks made some comments regarding child sponsorship organisations. The host had taken a call from a listener who wanted to discuss how the organisation Child Fund New Zealand operated. [2] In relation to ChildFund’s operations the host said that it was a: . . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – item on a man named Paul Cleave and his attempts to get his camera repaired – item explained that Mr Cleave had received a loan camera from the retailer – Mr Cleave was shown stating that he was not going to return the loan camera – the presenter made a number of comments about him taking the loan camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, balance and fairness standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – the Authority received conflicting evidence on two statements complained about and declined to determine them – the other three statements complained about were accurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a fair representation of Mr Cleave’s conduct – item’s change in focus was prompted by Mr Cleave’s own behaviour – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Mr Cleave signed a consent form allowing…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported that a Fijian island used by a New Zealand production company to film the television series Treasure Island, was being “trashed” – interviewed two men who had seen rubbish on the island – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no reasonable basis upon which to conclude that the rubbish was left by Treasure Island production – broadcaster has not provided any evidence to support claims made in the item – inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to production company – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific – host made comments about television personality who hosted Anzac Day programme on Māori Television – said she would have been paid “$25,000 or thereabouts” – questioned whether she would have “been allowed to take that lovely piece of greenstone home with her” – host also called Māori Television “disgusting apartheid TV station” – allegedly inaccurate and denigratoryFindingsStandard 6 (accuracy) – comments clearly speculation – not statements of fact to which accuracy standard applies – not upheldStandard 7 (social responsibility) and guideline 7a (denigration) – Māori Television not a “section of the community” to which denigration standard applies – comments not denigratory of Māori generally – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on 13 June about a 12-year-old Palestinian girl after six members of her family were killed by a shell on a Gaza beach – item suggested that shell was Israeli which had been fired in response to homemade rockets fired from Gaza – allegedly inaccurate for using falsified footage3 News – item on 14 June reported conflicting claims about who was responsible for the killing on the Gaza beach – denied by Israeli Defence Force (IDF) but Human Rights Watch said Israel was responsible – also included footage of another Israeli shell fired into Gaza which killed militants and innocent bystanders – allegedly unbalanced as it did not include evidence released by IDFFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – significant views advanced about controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no evidence that falsified footage used –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – “Troubled Waters” – boating accident involving fishing expert Wayne Wills aka “Bill Hohepa” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair as item suggested that Maritime Safety Authority had relentlessly and unjustifiably pursued, and continued to pursue, Mr WillsFindings Standard 4 (balance) – reasonable efforts made to present significant points of view – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained one inaccuracy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Wills’ view was not unfair to the MSA – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The consequences of a boating incident in 1996 involving the fishing expert Wayne Wills, better known and referred to in the programme as “Bill Hohepa”, in which one person drowned, was dealt with in an item broadcast on TV3 in 60 Minutes on 8 December 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a family (the Alexanders) who, in order to purchase a home, became involved in a family trust with the assistance of Miles McKelvy and Arden Fatu – $316,000 borrowed from Westpac to buy four properties – repayments in arrears – total debt grew to $331,000 – property deals and financing arrangements fell through – Alexanders approached Fair Go – Alexanders later sought to withdraw complaint – Fair Go declined – Dermot Nottingham named in item as advocate for Mr McKelvy and Mr Fatu – item urged people involved in complicated property deals to get independent legal advice – item allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) and Guidelines 4a and 4b – not unbalanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) and Guidelines 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d and 5e – insufficient information to determine inaccuracies complained of –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

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....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989State of the Nation – live televised debate on race relations included panel and studio audience – comments by Derek Fox interpreted as stating that Don Brash (the Leader of the Opposition) has not read the Treaty of Waitangi – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – comment misinterpreted – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] State of the Nation was broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 10 June 2004. The programme was a panel and studio audience discussion, broadcast live, in which the participants discussed race relations issues between Māori and Pākehā in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on recent memorial to Māori Battalion in Gisborne – noted Maori Battalion had highest casualty rate of any New Zealand unit in the war – allegedly inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 5 (accuracy) – ambiguity in words used – complainant and broadcaster took different meaning from words – unable to determine accuracy – declined to determine under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News on 11 July 2004 noted the unveiling of a memorial to the Māori Battalion which fought in the Second World War. The item included the statement: By the time the Māori Battalion arrived home, they’d suffered the highest casualty rate of any unit in the war, 680 men killed....

ComplaintReel Life: Thalidomide – A Necessary Evil – documentary – Dr Nigel Brown claims no evidence that any chemical which causes a birth defect in one generation can also cause defects in subsequent generations – inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – legitimate expression of scientific opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Reel Life documentary broadcast on TV One on 9 March 2001 between 9. 45pm and 10. 45pm, entitled Thalidomide – A Necessary Evil, examined the reappearance of thalidomide as an apparently effective drug in the treatment of a variety of illnesses including leprosy. During the course of the programme, Dr Nigel Brown from St George’s Hospital in London commented to the effect that there was no evidence that any chemical, including thalidomide, which had caused a birth defect in one generation could be blamed for similar defects in subsequent generations....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – doctor commented that human life begins at implantation, not conception – inaccurate – contrary to accepted medical practice – dangerous – undermined respect due to human embryo FindingsPrinciple 4 – not relevant Principle 5 – not relevant Principle 6 – well-informed opinion – no uphold Principle 8 – reminder This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Medical Training Co-ordinator of the New Zealand Family Planning Association commented on Newstalk ZB on 27 February 2002 at around 8. 30am along the lines that human life begins at the implantation of the human embryo into a woman’s womb and not at conception. [2] Right to Life New Zealand Inc. complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster of Newstalk ZB, that the comments were inaccurate, contrary to accepted medical practice and dangerous....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – Advertising Standards Complaints Board upheld a complaint about a Levi jeans advertisement – host critical of what he regarded as religious bigotry – socially irresponsible – unbalanced – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 6 – not applicable – no uphold Principle 7 – satire – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Paul Holmes, as the host of Paul Holmes Breakfast on Newstalk ZB, was highly critical of religious bigotry which, he contended, was the motivation for some people to complain about a television advertisement for Levi jeans. He expressed the view, by way of comment, in a broadcast shortly before 8. 00am on 27 August 2003. [2] Ross Craig complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments lacked balance, fairness and accuracy....

Complaint One News – war in Iraq – weapons of mass destruction described as cause of the war – inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 – expression of opinion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Weapons of mass destruction were described as the "whole cause" of the war in Iraq in a news item reporting on the day’s events in Basra, broadcast on One News at 6. 00pm on 8 April 2003. [2] Bill Leonard complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the statement was inaccurate and should have been introduced with the words, "The US claims that …". [3] In response, TVNZ contended that the true causes of any war required an historical perspective. It also argued that the reporter advanced the claim with some scepticism....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player. A doctor from ACC said it may well have been unethical for a doctor to use finance as a barrier to treatment....