Search Rapua

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2007-485-001609 PDF129....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-117:Kerr and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-117 PDF494. 67 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a ten-year-old boy who the reporter said was on the waiting list to have “tumours” removed from his body – outlined difficulties the boy’s mother had experienced dealing with his surgeon – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that the boy had more than one tumour – TVNZ failed to ensure that one of its sources was reliable – programme misled viewers by failing to inform them that surgeon had ensured the boy’s ongoing care – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not given a reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations in the item – upheld Orders Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(1) – costs to the complainant $6,750 Section 16(4) – costs to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

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 section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Live – Devlin Live – comments by host about proposal to open a house for psychiatric patients in a Wellington suburb without telling residents – criticised the Mental Health Commission – said decision was “as loco and loopy as the people they’re trying to place in the community” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, and in breach of social responsibilityFindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Principles 5 and 7Principle 4 (balance) – subsumed under Principles 5, 6 and 7Principle 5 (fairness) – unfairly criticised Mental Health Commission for a decision it did not make – not unfair to mental health patients – would not have caused panic or alarm – one aspect upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – accuracy standard applied to talkback host’s remarks – inaccurately attributed responsibility for acute facility to…...

The Authority has upheld two complaints from Action for Smokefree 2025 (ASH) about two items on ThreeNews reporting concerns about ASH, including alleged conflicts of interest and its stance on vaping. The Authority agreed the first item (26 July 2024), presented as a ‘special investigation’ into concerns about alleged links between ASH and the ‘pro-vaping’ lobby in Australia, breached the fairness, balance and accuracy standards: the reporter did not fairly inform ASH about the nature of the story or ASH’s contribution to it; ASH’s comments on the issues were not fairly presented, meaning the item was unbalanced; and, collectively, a number of statements and the presentation of ASH’s position created a misleading and unfairly negative impression of ASH....