Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-174 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CLIVE HAYWARD of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a discussion on a talkback segment on Newstalk ZB breached broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the complainant, who had called in to the programme, was not treated unfairly as she was given an opportunity to voice her opinion and was treated respectfully. The Authority also found that the broadcast’s criticism of United States President Donald Trump did not exceed what could fairly be expected to be levelled against a highly controversial United States President. The Authority noted that the balance and accuracy standards apply only to news, current affairs and factual programmes, and the accuracy standard does not apply to statements clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion. The discrimination and denigration standard also did not apply as it does not apply to individuals or organisations. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Balance, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Fair Go which covered a customer’s experience in purchasing a second-hand vehicle from Universal Imports. The customer did not obtain a pre-purchase report and when the vehicle broke down she attempted to reject the purchase under the Consumer Guarantees Act. A Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal ruling found in her favour. After the ruling, she ‘copped abuse, personal insults and name calling’ connected with the Universal Imports issues. The complainant alleged the programme was unfair to Universal Imports and its owner, and was inaccurate in how it presented the situation. The Authority found the business and its owner were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, and the programme was materially accurate. The complainant’s concerns about the use of aspects of his YouTube videos are not capable of being addressed under the standards....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-102 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS NORMAN of Wellington Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LTD J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-100 Decision No: 1997-101 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MURRAY ARNESEN of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-079 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JENNY HALE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989More FM Dunedin – complainant live on-air as winner of two movie tickets – said she was studying – host allegedly said “and to think three years ago you were sitting on your arse doing nothing going nowhere” – allegedly unfair and breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – no intrusion – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – comment intended as compliment – apology offered in view of misunderstanding appropriate – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The complainant was a caller to More FM Dunedin as the winner of two movie tickets. She was put on air by the host and, in response to a question, she said that she was studying....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – programme contained teaser for item in upcoming episode – teaser about a teenage boy who had committed suicide and the events leading up to his death involving two girls – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – girls not identifiable beyond those who already knew of the events – teaser did not draw any conclusions about their motives or character – not unfair – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on Wednesday 17 February 2010. At the end of the programme, a teaser was shown for an upcoming item that was going to be screened in the following week’s episode....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – item about violence encountered by staff working with dementia patients – contained interviews with a nurse working in a dementia ward, a representative from the Nurses Organisation and a spokesperson from the Ministry of Health – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – broadcaster presented the required significant viewpoints – perspective of care providers not vital to discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – comment complained about was not a statement of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – people and organisations taking part and referred to treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera trial evaluated six car grooming companies – complainant’s business sign was shown in establishing shot for another company’s evaluation – allegedly in breach of fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster could have taken more care but shot was brief and the programme made it clear which company was being evaluated – not unfair to complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Target, broadcast at 7. 30pm on TV3 on Tuesday 4 November 2009, the presenter summarised the results of a hidden camera trial in which an actress hired six different car grooming companies. Target hid a ten-dollar note in the back of the car and some change in the front seat as a test of the car groomers’ honesty....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

ComplaintNews item about community parties on New Year’s Eve – complainant named and said to be "spouting lies" and "hadn’t checked the facts" – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate FindingsPrinciple 4 and Principle 6 – subsumed under Principle 5 Principle 5 – any response, including decline to comment, not reported – unfair – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The possibility of three venues for New Year’s Eve party-goers in Central Otago was dealt with in a news item broadcast at 6. 30am, 7. 30am, 8. 30am and midday on 21 March 2003 on Blues Skies FM in Alexandra. The Chairman of one group which had staged a successful street party for five years, expressed his anger at one of the other groups. Naming the other group’s chair, he said that she had not checked the facts and was "spouting" lies....

Complaint Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club – clips of violent behaviour – breach of good taste – threatened standards of law and order – racist – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children – excessive violence – Prime upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspects upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings (1) action taken on Standards 2, 7 and 10 – action taken insufficient – uphold(2) Standard 1 – context – upholdStandard 6 – not unfair to South American Indians – no upholdStandard 9 – unsuitable for child viewers – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 October 2002....

ComplaintIt’s Your Money – item on two men looking for love – criticism of The Company Company Ltd, which provides organised singles events – unfair, unbalanced, inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – programme not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – Company able to respond on the programme to criticisms made – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The episode of It’s Your Money which screened on TV2 at 8pm on 12 February 2001 was sub-titled "Looking for Love". The programme looked at the experiences of two men, each of whom had spent time and money trying to find a female partner. The programme examined the various options open to the men, such as dating agencies, internet dating, and event organisers, and explored whether clients of these organisations were getting value for money....

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on 1 News reported on the Labour Party’s ‘Ready for Work’ policy, which offered unemployed young people employment on the minimum wage in environmental and community projects for six months. The item reported that, according to Labour, the scheme would cost $60 million per year for 10,000 participants. However, the $60-million sum was actually ‘based on participants taking up the scheme for just four months, not the promised six’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was based on inaccurate and unsubstantiated conclusions made by the reporter featured in the item, which was misleading and damaged the credibility of the Labour Party....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

In a segment on the Mike Hosking Breakfast programme, the host interviewed the Prime Minister about the Government’s decision to extend the Level 3 lockdown restrictions on Auckland in August 2020. The Authority did not uphold the complaints. It recognised the value of robust political discourse in the media and the role of media in holding to account those in positions of power. Overall, it found no harm at a level justifying regulatory intervention. While some may have found Mr Hosking’s approach and comments distasteful, they did not go beyond what could be expected of an interview of this nature. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Balance, Accuracy, Discrimination and Denigration, Children’s Interests...