Decision: Francis, Gouge and Thompson and TVWorks Ltd

Published: Tue 10 Apr 2012 03:58 PM
[Full decision at BSA website]
Francis, Gouge and Thompson and TVWorks Ltd - 2011-104
Dated: 03 April 2012
Number: 2011-104
• Ross Francis of Masterton
• Nick Gouge of Hamilton
• Alasdair and Joan Thompson of Auckland
Channel: TV3
Broadcaster: TVWorks Ltd
• Peter Radich (Chair)
• Te Raumawhitu Kupenga
• Leigh Pearson
• Mary Anne Shanahan
Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
Campbell Live – items reported on controversial comments made by the CE of the EMA that some female workers are less productive because they take sick leave when they are menstruating – interviewed CE and portion of the interview broadcast – included sarcastic comments and caricature of CE singing – panel discussed comments – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards
Standard 6 (fairness) – interview footage provided a fair summary of Mr Thompson’s character and conduct – was not necessary in the interests of fairness to broadcast the full interview – items not unfair to Mr Thompson, given his position as a public figure and that the comments reported on were made during a political discussion in the public arena – not upheld by majority
Standard 5 (accuracy) – items accurately reflected Mr Thompson’s behaviour in the full interview – we are not in a position to determine whether the items created a misleading impression about Mr Thompson’s personality traits – not upheld
Standard 4 (controversial issues) – items focused on Mr Thompson’s comments and his competency to fulfil his role as CE of the EMA, rather than the wider issue of pay equity – both issues amounted to controversial issues of public importance – Mr Thompson was provided with a sufficient opportunity to explain his comments in the interview and was invited to appear on 24 June item – viewers would have been aware of alternative significant viewpoints on the wider issue – broadcaster provided reasonable opportunities and made reasonable efforts to present significant viewpoints in the items and in other programming within the period of current interest – not upheld
Standard 3 (privacy) – woman employee referred to in 23 June item was not identifiable – not upheld
This headnote does not form part of the decision.
[Full decision at BSA website]

Next in New Zealand politics

New Zealand Dodges Dopey Experiment In Prohibition
By: ACT New Zealand
Government Backs Police To Crackdown On Gangs
By: New Zealand Government
New Zealand Provides Further Humanitarian Support To Gaza And The West Bank
By: New Zealand Government
High Court Judge Appointed
By: New Zealand Government
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILE © Scoop Media