Search Rapua

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-2035 PDF1. 53 MBComplaint under s....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 70/94 Dated the 22nd day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JARDINE INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED 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. ]Seven Sharp featured a story about two local residents, labelled ‘herb detectives’, who were determined to track down the man they believed was responsible for stealing their herbs. The reporter and the ‘herb detectives’ visited the local market looking for the alleged thief and spoke to a woman, Shunfang Shen, who was selling herbs. The reporter asked Mrs Shen where her herbs were from, and one of the residents said, ‘It looked very much like my mint. ’ The Authority upheld a complaint from Mrs Shen that the action taken by TVNZ, in upholding her complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair, was insufficient. The Authority acknowledged that TVNZ attempted to remedy the breach of standards, including by broadcasting a correction several days after the item....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item on girl gangs in Hawke’s Bay – interviewed current and former gang members – contained footage of four young teenage girls who were shown wearing gang-style clothing and spray-painting graffiti on a public basketball court – included a re-enactment involving two young girls breaking into a house – gang members shown drinking alcohol and talking about fighting – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – four young girls identifiable – disclosed private facts – children under 16 could not consent – item not in the best interests of the children – girl aged 16 agreed to participate on condition her identity would be secret – identities not sufficiently protected – disclosed private facts about the girls – highly offensive disclosure – upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Groove in the Park – text messages ran across the bottom of screen during broadcast of live music event on Waitangi Day – contained content which the complainant found offensive – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, contrary to children's interests, denigratory and in breach of promotion of liquor standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – use of expletives in graphic sentences was contrary to the observance of good taste and decency – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – text messages encouraged denigration of and discrimination against sections of the community based on race – upheldStandard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was G-rated and children likely to be watching on a public holiday – content highly unsuitable for children – upheld Standard 11 (liquor) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-128 Decision No: 1997-129 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CRIMINAL BAR ASSOCIATION of NEW ZEALAND INC Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about New Zealand’s dog breeds and breeders’ ethics regarding inbreeding – reporter visited one breeder at her home – allegedly unfair FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to comment – she should have been informed that the programme would broadcast specific allegations against her – reporter’s approach was unfair – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 29 March 2009, investigated the state of New Zealand’s pedigree dog breeds and breeding ethics in response to an earlier programme which looked at the health of Britain’s purebred dogs. [2] Included in the item was comment from a dog-owner, Chris, who owned a bulldog....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-182 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryA news item broadcast on TV3 on 29 June 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm summarised matters raised in a 20/20 programme broadcast the previous evening relating to the dismissal of the choirmaster at St Paul’s Cathedral in Dunedin. It was reported that the choir had returned to the Cathedral to demand the resignation of their Dean. Mr Greet and Mr Barnett complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate. TV3 responded that it was satisfied its report was a fair and accurate summary of the developments in the controversy surrounding the dismissal of the choirmaster which had been the subject of the 20/20 item the previous evening. It declined to uphold the complaints. Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr Greet and Mr Barnett referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about NZ Army engineers in Iraq – reference to an article written by the complainant and published in the “Sunday Star-Times” – item’s focus was engineers’ reaction to the article’s claims that their achievements had been exaggerated – complainant alleged that item unfairly represented article, and was inaccurate and unbalancedFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item’s focus was reporting reaction to the article’s claims of exaggerating the achievements of engineers and did not require further balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item inaccurately reported that newspaper article said that the engineers were exaggerating their achievements – not otherwise inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – article ambiguous in parts – unfair to complainant to misreport the exaggeration claims as being made by the engineers – not otherwise unfair – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 58/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCILLORS Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-127 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK KEARNEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

ComplaintOne News, Tonight, Assignment – inaccurate, reports of new evidence about William Sutch trial FindingsStandard G14 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G19 – action taken insufficient – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items on One News and Tonight, broadcast on 30 March 2000 at 6. 00pm and 10. 30pm respectively, examined what was described as new evidence relating to the 1975 trial of Dr William Sutch. The reports arose in the context of an Assignment programme, also broadcast that evening, in which the historic charges against Dr Sutch were reviewed. Simon Boyce complained that claims made in the two news bulletins were not substantiated in the Assignment programme, and that a still photograph shown in the news item was a misrepresentation of events. He also complained that the Assignment programme was inaccurate because it contained unsubstantiated allegations....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

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...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that an item on Fair Go that dealt with various issues arising from a house being built breached the accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found the programme was inaccurate and misleading in its portrayal of the issues involved in building the house. It found the complainants were portrayed unfairly and their views were not fairly reflected in the programme. It also found there was no breach of the privacy standard, and the balance standard did not apply as the programme did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance.   Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness Not Upheld: Privacy, Balance Orders: Section 13(1)(a) broadcast statement on air and online; Section 16(1) $2,000 legal costs and $98. 70 disbursements, Section 16(4) $1000 costs to the Crown...