Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-114 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROAD TRANSPORT FORUM NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – investigated one couple’s practice of grazing cattle along the banks of the Pahaoa River in the Wairarapa – interviewed concerned neighbour, environmental scientist, Greater Wellington Regional Council, and spokesman for Federated Farmers – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – story focused on one couple – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the Riddells were not given a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the story – reporter’s approach unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – legal costs to the complainant $1,670 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on 4 February 2009, the host introduced a story, saying: Let’s. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – hidden camera footage of caregivers hired to look after elderly actor – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – caregivers had an interest in seclusion – broadcast of hidden camera footage was an offensive intrusion in the nature of prying – individual caregivers did not provide informed consent – public interest did not outweigh breach of individuals’ privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6c – footage obtained “through misrepresentation or deception” – not required to use deception in the public interest – unfair to broadcast hidden camera footage – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Target, a consumer affairs programme, was broadcast at 7. 30pm on 3 July 2007....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During the Hauraki Breakfast Show, Deborah Stokes, mother of New Zealand-born English cricketer Ben Stokes, rang the studio to complain about what she considered to be unfair comments made by the hosts regarding her son, and to defend him. Mrs Stokes asked to speak with someone off air. Host Matt Heath assured Mrs Stokes she was off air, when in fact the conversation was being broadcast live on air. The Authority upheld a complaint that the action taken by NZME, having upheld Mrs Stokes’ complaint under the fairness and privacy standards, was insufficient. The broadcast, and particularly the hosts’ deceptive conduct, represented a significant breach of broadcasting standards and a lack of understanding of an individual’s fundamental right to fair treatment and to privacy....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Coast FM News reported that Zero Commission ‘has been making low ball offers’ to shareholders of various companies. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that Zero Commission and its shareholders were treated unfairly as no opportunity was given to respond to the claims or the negative impression created. The minority did not consider the item was unfair as Zero Commission could reasonably expect some commentary from time to time that it would not like or agree with. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the use of the term ‘low ball’ was inaccurate as this was a subjective term, not a point of fact. The controversial issues standard was not applicable because the item focused squarely on one company, not a controversial issue of public importance....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Morning Report covered a story on kauri swamp logs that were allegedly being illegally exported to China. It reported that the company Oravida was one of the ‘kauri wholesalers’ involved. RNZ upheld a complaint from Oravida’s director that the broadcast was unfair as comment was not sought from Oravida. RNZ had removed the audio and written pieces that referred to Oravida and its director from its website, and two days later in a subsequent broadcast briefly reported Oravida’s position that it had never been involved in illegal trading. The Authority upheld the complaint that the action taken by RNZ in upholding the fairness complaint was insufficient and that the broadcast was also inaccurate. The Authority did not make any order noting that a full correction and apology was broadcast after the referral of the matter to this Authority....

Complaint"Trial and Error" – 20/20 – David Bain murder trial – Milton Weir defamation action against Joe Karam – Weir’s admission that Bain jury was misled – inadvertent mistake – not first time admitted – unfair, unbalanced, impartial to present otherwise FindingsStandards G4 and G6 – impression given that first time mistake admitted – no evidence that mistake anything other then genuine – implication that Mr Weir might have intentionally misled jury – dramatic choice of language – interview with Assistant Commissioner of Police and reference to Police Complaints Authority’s report inadequate to provide balance/undo suggestion that mistake might have been intentional – uphold Standards G4 and G6 – aspects of complaint regarding evidential significance of mistake not a matter for the Broadcasting Standards Authority – decline to determine Standard G16 – standard concerned with the general viewing public – no uphold Standard G20 – reasonable efforts made to include Mr Weir in…...

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-008:Cook Islands Pearls Ltd and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-008 PDF982. 08 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – conducted a hidden camera trial of six cafés in Auckland – stated that food sample from Café Cézanne had tested positive for faecal coliforms which “could make you very sick” – sample had been incorrectly labelled and it was later discovered that it did not come from Café Cézanne – in the meantime broadcaster broadcast an apology (in following episode) that did not exclude possibility that sample came from Café Cézanne – both programmes allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – serious allegation that Café Cézanne’s food was contaminated with faecal coliforms was broadcast without verifying or checking results – sample did not come from Café Cézanne – apology was also inaccurate and inadequate to rectify the breach – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not give the complainants a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond because they were not…...

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…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – broadcast of anonymous interviewee’s allegations that the Hon David Benson-Pope was guilty of bullying students at Bayfield High School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – broadcasting allegations by anonymous interviewee unfair – RNZ did not verify interviewee’s credibility to a high standard before granting anonymity – did not undertake sufficient independent investigations into interviewee’s story – upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue whether Mr Benson-Pope bullied students during his time as a teacher – RNZ made reasonable efforts to present significant perspectives within period of current interest – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – one aspect subsumed under Principle 5 – decline to determine whether allegations were accurate – describing a caning as a “beating” not inaccurate – not upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $5,000…...

ComplaintFair Go – rare breeds of sheep put in care as owner had cancer – organiser of care took two flocks herself – owner sought to recover sheep – care organiser believed she owned sheep – no contract – inaccurate – unclear – unbalanced – editing which distorted FindingsStandard G4 – inadequate opportunity to respond – uphold Standards G1, G3, G6, G7, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary David Tuart, an owner of some rare sheep species, required treatment for cancer. Dr Beverley Trowbridge, a fellow breeder of rare sheep species, arranged for his flocks to be distributed among other farmers. After Mr Tuart had been treated, Dr Trowbridge refused to return some of the sheep as she believed that she had been given ownership of them....

Complaint under sections 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – Mr Laws interviewed the complainant, Karen Batchelor, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association – Mr Laws accused Ms Batchelor of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements – Mr Laws made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Action Taken – Mr Laws took an overly aggressive approach and continuously interrupted the complainant – he made comments that were personally abusive and accused the complainant of lying – overall complainant was treated unfairly – serious breach of fairness standard – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld Standard 5…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War featured a dispute between a group of neighbours over a right of way. Two sets of neighbours alleged that their neighbours, a couple (Mr and Mrs X), had been threatening and harassing them. The Authority upheld aspects of a complaint from Mr and Mrs X that the episode was unfair and breached their privacy. The Authority also determined that the broadcaster did not take sufficient action having upheld one aspect of the complainants’ original fairness complaint. The programme contained potentially damaging allegations against the complainants and did not present their side of the story....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-006 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by N E ARCHER of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 29/94 Decision No: 30/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR PAUL SMEDLEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has upheld one aspect of a complaint from three complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthic Vichar, broadcast on community radio station, Planet FM. During the programme, host Kuldip Singh made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding use of grant money and cheating or ‘unjust’ behaviour at a kabaddi tournament. The Authority found that the host’s comments reflected negatively on the complainants and as such, they should have been given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The Authority did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. The Authority acknowledged the limited resources available to the broadcaster, but reminded it of its obligations under the Broadcasting Act 1989 to receive and consider formal complaints through a proper process, including where the broadcast subject to complaint is in a language other than English....