Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-054 Decision No: 1997-055 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by P J CULLINANE Bishop of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-130 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by HON MURRAY McCULLY Minister of Housing Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

SummaryA Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 5 August 1998 dealt with the attempt by a motor vehicle dealer to repossess a couple’s car. It was reported that the owner of the company had been fined by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute for misconduct. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair, unbalanced and impartial because it was the company, and not the individual, which had been fined. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Mr Radisich, as Chief Executive, was responsible for the company’s business and it did not consider that the item had been unfair to name him. It advised that it was unable to find any aspect which lacked balance or impartiality and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Radisich’s solicitor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported one woman’s experience with receiving poor quality healthcare from The Palms Medical Centre in Palmerston North – Health and Disability Commissioner upheld her complaint about the centre – item named and showed footage from a previous item of one of the doctors involved – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – medical centre was told that Kay Shirkey was being interviewed about her experience at The Palms and that the story would be critical of the centre – Dr Saxe was her primary doctor – reporters asked several times to interview someone at the centre – not unfair – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about Dr Saxe – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on Ms Shirkey’s experience with The Palms – no discussion…...

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

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item examining proposed amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 which would remove the defence of “reasonable force” for parents charged with assaulting their children – interviewed mother and 14-year-old son – allegedly breached the boy’s privacy, was unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair and in breach of children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – unable to determine whether the boy consented to the interview – decline to determine Standard 4 (balance) – significant perspectives put forward – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – mother was presenting her own opinion, not statements of fact, and was not an “information source” under guideline 5e – did not need to outline background information about the mother – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – boy was exploited under guideline 6f – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to…...

ComplaintCoronation Street – two episodes included domestic discord – males struck by females – unnecessary violence – gender discrimination Findings Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – characters treated unequally in fictional series – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 10 – violence displayed appropriate to dramatic storylines – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Domestic incidents showing physical abuse of men by their women partners were included in episodes of Coronation Street broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 25 September and 7 October 2003. [2] Edwin Stranaghan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each incident involved unnecessary violence and gender discrimination. He contended that it was discrimination to show women assaulting men, when it was unacceptable to show men assaulting women. He also argued that the programme should be broadcast later in the evening....

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....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging a Nine to Noon interview discussing the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill breached the balance and fairness standards. The item included interviews with current and former Children’s Commissioners, who were both generally opposed to the proposed legislation. As the item was clearly signalled as coming from a particular perspective, and the existence of other perspectives was indicated within the broadcast, the Authority found there was no need to include other perspectives within the item itself. In the circumstances it was unlikely listeners would have been left uninformed or unaware there were other perspectives on the issue. The fairness standard did not apply. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an interview on Saturday Morning, where the host misgendered and ‘deadnamed’ the interviewee, breached the discrimination and denigration standard. While the Authority acknowledged the potential harm in the host’s words, it found the words were directed at the interviewee as an individual, not a section of society as required by the standard. The Authority, in implying the fairness standard, did not consider listeners would have been left with a negative impression of the interviewee. The potential harm therefore did not reach the threshold justifying regulatory intervention.    Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Real Crime: Broken Promises, Broken Brides – investigated the mistreatment of foreign brides in New Zealand – profiled a Malaysian woman who died of a methadone overdose – interviewed her husband who was convicted of her manslaughter – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme did not create a misleading impression that the complainant intended to murder his wife – reporter outlined the facts of the case and clearly stated the complainant was convicted of manslaughter – complainant’s perspective was included in the programme – programme was accurate and would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant was provided with a sufficient opportunity to give his perspective in two interviews – interviews were not unfairly edited – overall complainant was treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Tonight – item reported on deaths of two people involved in a police pursuit – stated that 10 people in 2010 had died “as a result of patrol car pursuits” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state that police were responsible for the deaths – viewers would have understood the meaning of the reporter’s statement – not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item was straightforward news report – no judgement was made about the actions of the police involved in the pursuits – not unfair to the police – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 10....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment on Nine to Noon, titled ‘Science with Simon Pollard’, science commentator Simon Pollard spoke about ‘the science of conspiracy theories’. The Authority did not uphold two complaints that the host allowed Mr Pollard to make one-sided, inaccurate comments that were highly critical of conspiracy theorists. This was clearly an opinion piece, on a topic of human interest, so Mr Pollard’s comments were not subject to standards of accuracy, and the broadcaster was not required to present other significant viewpoints. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During a segment on Nine to Noon, titled ‘Science with Simon Pollard’, science commentator Simon Pollard spoke about ‘the science of conspiracy theories’....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-059:Te Reo Takiwa O Ngatihine and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-059 PDF686. 17 KB...

The Authority has upheld a complaint about two broadcasts on Humm FM, finding that the complainant was treated unfairly. The Authority found that comments made by the host during the broadcasts were likely to reflect negatively on the complainant and to impact on his personal and professional reputation. As the complainant was adversely affected, he should have been given an opportunity under the fairness standard to respond to the comments made about him. The Authority emphasised that the right to broadcast carries with it privileges and responsibilities, and in this case the host used his platform to air his personal grievances against the complainant without giving him an opportunity to comment, which was unfair....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an interview on Q+A, broadcast on TVNZ 1, with the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which included questions about the Government’s COVID-19 response, leaking of information regarding the ‘Green School’ funding, New Zealand First Party funding, the Serious Fraud Office investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation and a tax-payer funded trip of Mr Peters’ two friends to Antarctica. The complainant argued the interview breached the fairness standard because the broadcaster did not give Mr Peters notice of his proposed contribution regarding the various topics raised. The Authority found the wide-ranging and robust questioning was within the scope of what could be expected for a high profile and senior political figure like Mr Peters on matters of significant public interest in the lead up to a general election. Not Upheld: Fairness...