Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the Commerce Commission's prosecution of a man and his company Probitas, who were marketing a fertiliser system – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme failed to provide viewers with a significant perspective which was critical to their understanding of the issues – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate statements of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – promo – not unfair to expert witness – promo was a fair reflection of interview with the Commission's representative – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme – did not fairly present the Commission's side of the story – unfair to the Commission – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $2182....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – update on a 2005 story about a Chinese family – father had been deported and mother was fighting a deportation order – interviewed the couple’s three children – daughter was shown distressed and in tears – allegedly unfair Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster failed to use discretion and sensitivity when interviewing child about a distressing situation – child was exploited – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $1,500 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 14 November 2006, discussed a long-running court case involving a Chinese couple who had come to New Zealand on a working visa more than a decade ago....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview about legislation change to introduce paying the minimum wage to disabled people – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Principle 4 (balance) – presenter adopted aggressive manner with two interviewees – prevented interviewees from presenting significant viewpoints to listeners – listeners deprived of important information on controversial issue under discussion – unbalanced – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – one aspect of fairness complaint subsumed into consideration of Principle 4 – programme not unfair to Minister for Disability Issues – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint Newstalk ZB – Discussion about leaky building syndrome – caller "Graham" referred to two leaking problems with his new home in Newlands – complainant developer in Newlands – only one leaky building problem – "Graham" an employee of TRN – unfair Findings Principle 5 – complainant neither identified nor identifiable – not referred to – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaky building syndrome was one of the topics discussed on Newstalk ZB broadcast in Wellington on the morning of 18 September 2002. A caller "Graham" described leaky building problems with his bathroom and his deck in his new home in a development in the Wellington suburb of Newlands. [2] Kingdom Residential Housing Ltd, through its solicitors, complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with Sir Eion Edgar – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Monday 22 February 2010, the host interviewed Sir Eion Edgar as he had recently been named Senior New Zealander of the Year....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the reasons that outgoing New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd was not seeking re-election. These included that Mr Judd had suffered abuse and become ‘deeply unpopular’ because of his campaign to increase Māori representation on the New Plymouth District Council, in particular by proposing that a Māori ward be established on the Council. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s editorial comments following the item were unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair. In making its decision, the Authority acknowledged the influential position of the presenters, but found that alternative views were conveyed during the item and in subsequent items during the period of current interest. The presenters’ comments were their opinion and analysis of the issues discussed, rather than statements of fact, so they were not subject to the accuracy standard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Nine to Noon programme included a segment featuring UK correspondent Dame Ann Leslie. In response to the host’s question ‘What is on your mind this week? ’, Dame Leslie commented on the British Labour Party, its leader Jeremy Corbyn and the Black Lives Matter UK organisation. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that Dame Leslie’s comments constituted an attack on Mr Corbyn, denigrated the BLM UK activists, and were inaccurate and unbalanced. Mr Corbyn and BLM UK were not treated unfairly, as both could reasonably expect to be subject to robust media scrutiny as a consequence of their public profile. While the item was a current affairs piece to which the balance standard applied, the issues were approached from Dame Leslie’s perspective and listeners would not have expected alternative views to be given....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A campaign clip for the Ban 1080 Party (an election programme for the purposes of the Election Programmes Code) was broadcast on 10 September 2017 on Māori Television. The clip featured a voiceover discussing the purported use and effects of sodium fluoroacetate (1080 poison) on New Zealand’s flora, fauna and waterways, accompanied by footage of animal carcasses and 1080 baits in water. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the election programme was misleading and breached the Election Programmes Code and the Free-To-Air Television Code. The Authority found that the election programme did not contain statements of fact that were misleading, inaccurate, or indistinguishable from opinion. The claims made within the context of the broadcast were statements of political advocacy and opinion, made for the purpose of encouraging voters to vote for the Ban 1080 Party....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Martin Crump Late Night Live – stand-in host encouraged running over possums – complainant phoned the show and disagreed with the host – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, and fairness standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – talkback is a robust forum – host’s comments were “tongue-in-cheek” and not intended to be taken seriously – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not Authority’s role to determine whether deliberately running over possums is a crime – two callers gave the view that it was irresponsible – host discouraged dangerous driving – broadcast did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant was allowed more than two minutes to air his views – callers who disagree with a talkback host’s…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from 20 complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme, Bhakhde Masley. During the programme, the host questioned the teachings of a deceased Sikh religious figure by posing hypothetical questions about how he and his widow, now also deceased, had children. The host implied that, given the leader’s teachings about celibacy, his widow and other family members must have had sex with animals. The complainants alleged that this discussion breached the privacy of the individuals referred to, and was degrading and humiliating. The Authority acknowledged that the segment was in poor taste, but found that the broadcast was not in breach of the standards raised by the complainants....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a RadioLIVE Drive show, which discussed the issue of property managers or landlords asking to see the bank statements of prospective tenants. The Authority found the broadcast did not breach any of the broadcasting standards raised by the complainant, noting the broadcast included a range of viewpoints from the hosts, interviewees and listeners who phoned into the programme. The broadcast discussed a legitimate issue and was in line with audience expectations for the programme and for talkback radio. The Authority therefore found no actual or potential harm that might have outweighed the important right to freedom of expression....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 92/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AGNES-MARY J BROOKE of Nelson Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-046 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P G CURRAN of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary An American documentary entitled Scared Straight – 20 Years On was broadcast by TV3 on 12 July 1999 at 8. 30pm. It examined a rehabilitation programme for youthful offenders which was based on behaviour modification. The programme was trialled in the 1970s, and 20 years later some of those participants were asked about their experiences on the course and how they had lived their lives since then. James Whitham complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme condoned violence and encouraged intimidating and threatening behaviour. He contended that it had breached a number of broadcasting standards. TV3 responded by noting that the behaviour modification programme had been used successfully in America to help teenage offenders. In the context of an AO programme, which had been preceded by a verbal and written warning relating to language, TV3 maintained that no standards had been breached....

ComplaintOne News – item reported the issue of a safety advisory notice for an oil heater sold through the Warehouse – following item reported death of two girls in fire thought to have been caused by gas heater – complaint that items unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – each item balanced – not upheld Standard 5 – each item accurate – not upheld Standard 6 – juxtaposition of items created misleading impression – unfair – upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The issue of a safety advisory notice about the Brio Five Fin oil heater, sold through The Warehouse stores, was reported in an item broadcast on One News on 30 August 2003 beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One....

The chair, Joanne Morris, declared a conflict of interest and declined to participate in the determination of this complaint....

ComplaintMotorway Patrol and promo – incident involving the complainants’ vehicle – complainants identifiable – breach of privacy – unfair – encouraged discrimination FindingsStandards 3 – privacy – no uphold Standard 6, Guideline 6b – not unfair to inadvertent participants who do not consent as events of public interest occurred in public place – no uphold, Guideline 6f – humiliation self-inflicted – no uphold, Guideline 6g – neither discrimination or denigration encouraged – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The loss of a trampoline off the roof of a vehicle as it drove across the Auckland Harbour Bridge was the incident dealt with in a promo for, and in the first segment of, Motorway Patrol broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 11 April 2002. Motorway Patrol is a reality series which records the work of police patrols on the Auckland motorways....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote…...