Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-080 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHILD ADVOCACY TRUST of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-075 Decision No: 1997-076 Decision No: 1997-077 Decision No: 1997-078 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by GEOFFREY PRENTICE of Auckland and GERARD ROBERTS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a newsreader’s use of the term ‘rogue state’ in the introduction to a news item, referring to North Korea. The item reported on the resumption of peace talks between the leaders of the United States and North Korea, and segued into an investigation about the effects of economic sanctions on the people of North Korea. The complaint was that using the term was biased and lacked balance, and the term was better suited to describe the United States. In its decision the Authority noted that the term complained about was used only once, fleetingly, in the newsreader’s introduction and would not have affected viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority did not uphold three complaints about an episode of Sunday that discussed freedom of expression and hate speech and which featured edited excerpts of an interview with Canadian commentators, Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern. The Authority found the broadcast was balanced, containing a wide range of perspectives on a controversial issue of public importance, being the exercise of the right to freedom of expression in New Zealand. The Authority also found that the interview with Mr Molyneux and Ms Southern was used to illustrate points relevant to the wider topic but was not in itself the central focus of the item. The pending visit of Mr Molyneux and Ms Southern was therefore used to frame the issues in the item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Native Affairs – item discussed the findings of a 2009 Education Review Office report on a Māori immersion school called Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi – reporter made statements about operation of the school and teachers’ resignations – included footage of a previous interview with the Chair of the school’s Board of Trustees and interviews with a representative from the national body that represents Te Kura Kaupapa Māori and a past principal of the school – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item accurate in relation to the points raised by the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and the Kura’s Board given adequate opportunity to respond – item dealt…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that nine SOEs had paid bonuses to staff in 2008 – two SOEs had not responded to Official Information Act requests from the broadcaster – showed reporter at Ombudsman's office handing over a complaint about the lack of response – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfair pressure being placed on Office of the Ombudsman – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – Olympic competitors banned for drug use – athlete Marion Jones suspected – unfair – inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – not applicable Standard G4 – report on speculation not unfair – no uphold Standard G5 – speculation not illegal – no uphold Standards G14, G19 and G21 – not applicable This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Under the heading "Drug Cheats", a promo for Holmes broadcast on TV One on 28 September 2000 questioned whether athlete Marion Jones and swimmer Inge de Bruijn had taken performance-enhancing drugs before the Olympic Games in Sydney. John O’Neill complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the allegations required an explanation. He said he had not heard anything to link athlete Marion Jones to drugs, and he wondered where TVNZ had got its information, and whether the allegation was justified....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about voluntary ‘DIY’ sperm donation in New Zealand, and in particular the complainant’s history of frequent sperm donations, breached broadcasting standards relating to privacy, fairness and accuracy. The Authority found there was a high level of public interest in discussing the risks associated with using DIY sperm donors, as well as CA’s extensive donation history in particular, which outweighed the potential harm to CA. The Authority concluded the programme did not disclose any private information about CA, and overall CA was treated fairly and was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to allegations made about him in the programme. Doorstepping CA (approaching him on the street with cameras rolling) was not unfair in the circumstances, and he willingly engaged in a lengthy interview with the reporter....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – items reported that the Ministry of Social Development had hired a “prominent drag queen to motivate staff” – reported that the National Party believed taxpayers’ money was being wasted – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – items implied MSD had hired a drag artist as a motivational speaker – MSD had really hired Edward Cowley as a professional facilitator – misleading and inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to MSD and to Mr Cowley – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into Standards 5 and 6 Order Section 16(4) – payment of $2500 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item introduced as “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” – about an undertaker whose practices were said to have offended some families – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair – allegedly breached privacy of named undertakerFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (iii) – no intrusion in the nature of prying – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue discussed not featured in complaint – complaint subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – partiality dealt with under fairness – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – opportunities given to respond – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] “The Funeral Director from the Dark Side” was the introduction to an item broadcast on TV One’s Close Up at 7. 00pm on 7 June 2005....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Sport – Mystery and the Mouth – talkback discussion about former All Black captain – caller abused – allegedly offensive, unbalanced and unfairFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – borderline – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – style and manner of comment complained about, not substance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – host’s response unprofessional given other options available – nevertheless responded to provocation – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Mystery and the Mouth is the name of the talkback programme broadcast on Radio Sport between 10am to 12 noon on Sunday mornings. The programme hosts are John Morrison – “Mystery”, and Miles Davis – “The Mouth”....

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. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on 1 News, about claims from the Department of Conservation (DOC) that staff had been abused and attacked by anti-1080 protestors, breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found the item was unlikely to mislead or misinform audiences, as it contained comments from various parties including a DOC representative, an anti-1080 campaigner and a National Party MP. The Authority highlighted the importance of the reporting on issues of public importance in an accurate and balanced manner, finding that the broadcaster did so on this occasion....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nelson Newstalk ZB interview following local body elections – Mayor of Nelson commented on his lessened majority – stated that Grey Power had been “hijacked” by members of his opponent’s team – allegedly unbalanced, unfair, inaccurate and encouraged denigration Findings Principle 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – no persons treated unfairly – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – expression of opinion – standard does not apply – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) and Guideline 7a (denigration) – expression of opinion – standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A broadcast on Nelson Newstalk ZB on 11 October 2004 at around 11. 30am featured an interview with the winning Mayors of Nelson (Paul Matheson) and Tasman (John Hurley)....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

SummaryThe relationship between a Department of Corrections employee and a former inmate, which was the subject of a later investigation by the department and resulted in the resignation of the employee, was the focus of items on 20/20, broadcast by TV3 on 11 October and 15 November 1998. It was also the subject of a bulletin opener and a news item on 3 News on 10 November 1998. Mr Wallace, father of the employee, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) that the identification of his son in the commentary, and the footage accompanying it, represented harassment and a gross invasion of his son’s privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM radio in Timaru – announcer said that the owner of a rival radio station in Timaru had supported the launch of the new station and that his revenue would be cut in half – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and social responsibility FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – words used not in poor taste or indecent – not upheld Principle 3 (privacy) – complainant publicly listed as director and owner of Port FM Ltd – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments clearly light-hearted and very mild – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – no suggestion that broadcaster failed to act in socially responsible manner – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....