Search Rapua

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....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging R&R breached the good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, accuracy and fairness standards. The programme discussed Aotearoa New Zealand’s colonial history. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preferences regarding matters of editorial discretion. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Accuracy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Overnight Talk Show – radio host played excerpt from television show The View in which Fox News commentator, Bill O’Reilly, stated that the mosque near Ground Zero was “inappropriate” and that “Muslims killed us on 9/11” – radio host discussed comments – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – listeners would not expect a range of balanced views from a talkback programme – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host’s comments amounted to opinion and analysis – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...

SummaryAgnes-Mary Brooke, editor of the recently published first issue of "The Best Underground Press – Critical Review" was interviewed on Kim Hill, broadcast on National Radio at 10. 50am on 6 August 1999. Ms Brooke complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interviewer was rude and antagonistic. During the interview, she said, she had been dealt with unfairly and had not been given an opportunity to advance her opinions. Furthermore, she contended that there were some inaccuracies in the interviewer’s comments. Denying that there were any inaccuracies, RNZ maintained that Ms Brooke was not treated unfairly, and had been given an adequate opportunity to express her opinions. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with RNZ’s decision, Ms Brooke referred her complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintOff the Wire – radio comedy - comment that fat people are greedy and smelly – unfair – bad taste – encourages negative stereotypes FindingsPrinciple 1 – context – no uphold Principle 5 – not news or current affairs – not applicablePrinciple 6 – specific person not referred to – no upholdPrinciple 7 Guideline 7a – satirical exception to encouraging denigration – no uphold – Guideline 7b – not children’s normally accepted listening time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Off the Wire, a radio comedy, was broadcast on National Radio at about 9. 05pm on Friday 1 November 2002, and repeated at 1. 30pm the next day. In dealing with a news item about a doctor being sacked from an overseas hospital, a participant had stated that "fat people are greedy and smelly – don’t trust them"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Afternoons with Jim Mora – discussed New Zealand First’s decision to drop a candidate for drinking his own urine – panellist commented that Don Brash and John Banks “drink each other’s urine” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment puerile, but not so offensive as to breach Standard 1 – would not have offended or distressed most listeners – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – comment did not carry any invective – was not unfair to Don Brash or John Banks – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryThe involvement of the Prime Minister’s staff with Timberlands was the subject of news items on One Network News broadcast on 17, 18 and 19 August 1999 beginning at 6. 00pm, an item on Breakfast on 18 August beginning at 7. 00am, and an item on Holmes on 18 August beginning at 7. 00pm. It was reported that although Mrs Shipley had denied such involvement with the company after she became Prime Minister, papers released that day indicated otherwise. Hon David Carter, Associate Minister of Food, Fibre, Biosecurity and Border Control complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the 18 August report was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced. He pointed out first that Mrs Shipley had not denied that her staff had been involved with Timberlands since she had become Prime Minister....

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with witness – anti-police – unbalanced – partial – prejudice to fair hearing FindingsStandard G6 – eyewitness account necessarily focused on one perspective – balance achieved over time – no uphold Standard G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A witness to the shooting of a young man by a policeman in Waitara was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on 17 July 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The item recorded that there was some discrepancy between what the eyewitness had told the police immediately after the incident and his statement to a private investigator some days later. Martyn Stewart complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was an "emotive display of pure sensationalism" which would have incited the public to be biased against the police....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host started discussion about the Star Anise Waru murder investigation – stated that the baby’s parents were “poster children for sterilisation” – included an argument with a caller who contended Mr Laws was promoting eugenics – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – talkback radio is a robust environment – callers aware that Mr Laws could be rude to them if they disagreed with his views – remarks did not amount to abuse – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – comments were rude and obnoxious, but not abusive – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – involuntary sterilisation of child abusers not a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comments were clearly…...

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....

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 National Radio – interview with Pauline Hanson on Morning Report – interviewer asked if she was considering political life again and mentioned that ACT party in New Zealand was looking for a new leader – comments allegedly unfair to ACT leaders and voters Findings Principle 5 (fairness) – comment did not attribute politics of Pauline Hanson to ACT party or members – issue of fairness did not arise – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Former Australian politician Pauline Hanson was interviewed on Morning Report on 7 May 2004, shortly before the 7 o’clock news. The interview took place in the context of Ms Hanson’s trip to New Zealand for the purpose of promoting a cleaning franchise. During the interview the interviewer asked Ms Hanson: Any thoughts about entering the political arena again?...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Pacific talkback – discussion about Exclusive Brethren and religious cults – host alleged, among other things, that Exclusive Brethren were mad, ignorant, bad neighbours and probable child abusers who should be bred out of the human race – broadcast allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, degrading, defamatory and discriminatoryFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumedPrinciple 4 (balance) – subsumedPrinciple 5 (fairness) – unfair to Exclusive Brethren – upheldPrinciple 7 (denigration and discrimination) – encouraged denigration of members of Exclusive Brethren – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 16(1) – costs awards totalling $3456. 74This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The Exclusive Brethren and whether religions sects should be granted dispensation from certain laws of New Zealand was one of three topics discussed during Michael Laws’ talkback programme broadcast on Radio Pacific on 13 July 2004....

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint3 News – complainant victim of rape and attempted murder in the United States – alleged offender arrested after 20 years because of DNA evidence – news item showed photo of complainant at time of offence – breach of privacy – community standards not maintained – item caused unnecessary distress – item involved unnecessary intrusion into complainant and family’s grief FindingsPrivacy – complainant not identified – no uphold Standard G2 – images not breach of community standards in context – no uphold Standard G16 – issues better addressed under G17 Standard G17 – intrusion into grief occurred – but valid news item and no unnecessary gratuitous detail This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The complainant, a New Zealand woman, was the victim of a rape and attempted murder in the United States....

ComplaintOur People Our Century: "In the Family Way" – inaccurate, sexist statements – women portrayed as victims, men as violent abusers FindingsG1 – not inaccurate – no uphold G4 – not unfair – no uphold G6 – not relevant – balance not required in social history – no uphold G13 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The first episode of the documentary series Our People Our Century was broadcast on TV One on 7 February 2000 at 8. 30pm. It was entitled "In the Family Way" and looked at family life in New Zealand through the experiences of three different families. Bruce Tichbon complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme made a number of inaccurate sexist statements in relation to men, and unfairly and inaccurately portrayed women as victims and men as violent abusers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....