| Author |
Post |
|
|
#1 Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:15 pm
|
|
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 433
|
We'll be writing a story but for now here's my comment that I submitted on the tv3 website, I wrote: "Hi, regarding the segment on illegal downloads I suggest you contact the Creative Freedom Foundation for an alternate view (they have 10,000 New Zealand artists onboard). The groups you've shown from NZFACT and RIANZ were pushing for New Zealanders to be punished without a trial under a law that was called "draconian" by Prime Minister John Key and subsequently scrapped. That's how fringe these groups you're showing are. The law responsible -- Section 92A of the Copyright Act -- was called the Guilt Upon Accusation law, where any New Zealand organisation (familes, businesses, schools, hospitals) would have their internet terminated if one person was accused (not proven) of breaking the law. New Zealanders don't think it's fair to cut off a family's power if one member uses it break the law, nor do we think it's fair to cut off a business's postal service if one employee uses it to break the law. This has has widespread protest from artists because they don't want it done in their name. and this is not the way to help New Zealand industry. I suggest that you contact the Creative Freedom Foundation for a non-bias view that will help artists and New Zealanders." UPDATE November 10th 2009 made a front-page post about this |
|
|
#2 Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:25 pm
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
Location: Christchurch
|
It was a terribly biased segment. Do you think a formal complaint might be possible under the BSA fairness standards?
|
|
|
#3 Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:37 pm
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
Location: Christchurch
|
actually, upon looking, the following standards might be better?
Standard 4 Controversial Issues – Viewpoints
When discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.
Guideline
4a. No set formula can be advanced for the allocation of time to interested parties on controversial issues of public importance. Significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme. This can only be done by judging each case on its merits.
4b The assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented takes account of some or all of the following:
* the programme introduction;
* whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective (e.g. authorial documentaries, public access and advocacy programmes;
* whether viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of views expressed in other coverage.
Standard 5 Accuracy
Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming:
* is accurate in relation to all material points of fact and/or
* does not mislead.
Guidelines
5a The accuracy standard does not apply to statements which are clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion.
5b In the event that a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it at the earliest appropriate opportunity.
5c News must be impartial.
|
|
|
#4 Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:55 pm
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
Location: Christchurch
|
Just lodged an online complaint. I'm sure others can do better, but feel free to crib from text below. This is where you can lodge a compaint: http://www.bsa.govt.nz/complain-start.php"I am making a complaint specifically about the segment covering 'piracy' and copyright legislation in New Zealand: Standard 4: Controversial Issues – Viewpoints Target made no attempt to conform to the standard, specifying that they must make "reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view" regarding this issue. The recent internet blackout against S92A was not addressed, nor were any viewpoints from 'this side' of the issue. S92A was condemned as draconian by PM John Key, and there were clearly many issues with the proposed legislation, which were given wide coverage in numerous places, both nationally and internationally. Three strikes legislation is at the centre of an ongoing international debate about copyright legislation, and only one side of this debate was addressed. There was widespread public support for the binning of S92A, and there continues to be concern over its new iterations. Target made no attempt at all to cover this, and their segment read like a RIANZ-dictated piece of propaganda. I am sure the Creative Freedom Foundation, responsible for spearheading the campaign against S92A, and an established source of credible information on this issue, would have been more than happy to speak to Target, but it would appear that they were not consulted. This is unacceptable, and irresponsible. Standard 5: Accuracy In line with the specifics explained in the section above, Target's failure to represent varying perspectives on this issue compromised the accuracy of their 'piracy' segment, by misleading viewers about the issue. " |
|
|
#5 Tue Nov 03, 2009 10:32 pm
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
|
Standards 4 and 5 have been breached, IMO... as Matthew pointed out elsewhere, it's not a crime to infringe on copyright, so the programme isn't accurate in what it states.
|
|
|
#6 Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:21 pm
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
|
I agree that the segment was very disappointing. I specifically watched it because I knew it could be controversial, but it was even more poorly presented that I anticipated. Shame on you Target for not getting both sides of the story!
|
|
|
#7 Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:37 pm
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 2
|
Hi Matthew,
It appears that as well as providing a rubbish segment on an issue that is extremely controversial TV3 deems any criticism of their programs in the comments section to be grounds for removal. I might be wrong here but following the link that you provided returns: comments: 0
To echo OJB: Shame on you Target!
|
|
|
#8 Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:44 am
|
|
Administrator
Registered: Jan 2009
Posts: 433
|
MrH wrote Hi Matthew,
It appears that as well as providing a rubbish segment on an issue that is extremely controversial TV3 deems any criticism of their programs in the comments section to be grounds for removal. I might be wrong here but following the link that you provided returns: comments: 0
To echo OJB: Shame on you Target!
Looks like they've just approved a bunch of comments, http://www.tv3.co.nz/Target-1039/tabid/742/articleID/61994/cat/37/Default.aspx |
|
|
#9 Wed Nov 04, 2009 1:04 am
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 2
|
Thanks Matthew,
That was quite a wait to see the comments appear there!
|
|
|
#10 Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:39 pm
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 2
|
I posted my comment on their site nearly 12 hours ago, so either they're having a slow morning, or maybe they have more comments to moderate! Quote Whilst I do not condone piracy in any way, I was really rather surprised and disappointed at how one sided your report last night on piracy was.
You make no mention of the significant risks to innocent Internet users should Section 92A of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 become law.
This would put the onus upon ISP's and content hosting sites (flickr, youtube, etc) to investigate claims of copyright violation from content rights holders. In effect, these this would lead to termination of connections and taking down of content simply on the accuser's say so.
Many people, regard Internet connectivity as a utility - to have this disconnected on the say so of a rights-holder is disproportionate. Especially when these rights-holders' methods are not reliable (e.g. MPAA issuing a DMCA takedown notice to a laser printer at the University of Washington). The potential for false positives, possibly malicious, is plain to see. Some have also used this legislation to effectively censor critics.
Regarding the risks of downloading from file sharing sites, yes this is a risky activity, however, as Sony BMG illustrated in 2005 with their root-kit fiasco, you're not that much safer trusting media companies. Their installation of XCP spyware without notifying users prompted a United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team advisory, and forced a massive product recall and many government organisations to ban employees from playing audio CD's on company computers.
There are many reasons that John Key to put Section 92 A on hold back in February - those reasons have not gone away.
To not talk to anyone on the other side of the argument is inexcusable. If talking to say the Creative Freedom Foundation is too much effort, maybe just talk to your colleague Hayden Poole, Business/Technology Editor at 3 News - I believe he took part in the Internet Blackout Campaign.
Selling out to RIANZ 2/10
Scaremongering 3/10
Balanced report 1/10
Overall 2/10
Could do better.
|
|
|
#11 Wed Nov 04, 2009 10:47 pm
|
|
Member
Registered: Nov 2009
Posts: 2
|
Subsequent to my post, I heard from Hayden Poole that he didn't take part in the campaign.
I will update my post on TV3's site to that effect.
|
