Tobacco Institute of New Zealand Limited of Auckland v. Television New Zealand Ltd
The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand (Institute) complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority of New Zealand (Authority) that Television New Zealand (TVNZ) had broadcasted a documentary about the tobacco industry, which allegedly portrayed tobacco industry executives in an inaccurate and unbalanced manner and encouraged employment discrimination of Maori women by depicting them as heavy smokers. The Institute claimed that such distortions violated broadcasting laws, which require standards of accuracy and reasonableness in reporting. The Authority dismissed the complaint, finding TVNZ did not present inaccurate information because the documentary adequately distinguished statements of opinion from fact. The Authority also found that TVNZ had not presented an unbalanced depiction of the tobacco industry because TVNZ's focus on the industry was "peripheral" to the program's larger anti-smoking theme. The Authority further found that the comments made about Maori women and smoking were too tenuous to subject Maori women to employment discrimination.
Tobacco Institute of New Zealand Limited of Auckland v. Television New Zealand Ltd, 2000-036, Broadcasting Standards Authority of New Zealand (2000).
The tobacco industry may attack an individual or organization in court. For example, a tobacco company may sue a tobacco control advocacy organization for defamation. Another example is a suit in which a tobacco company sought burdensome document production from a University under a freedom of information claim.
Public statements may be defamatory, because they falsely provide a negative image or harm the reputation of individuals, organizations, or corporations.
Tobacco is a legal product and the tobacco industry is a legal industry.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The tobacco industry’s position was advanced in the programme by its representative, Mr Maguire. The
Authority considers that while the Tobacco Institute may be unhappy about the extent of that coverage, the
key questions concerning the industry’s legitimacy and Mr Delamere’s comments were put to Mr Maguire
and his answers to these were broadcast. The questions appeared to the Authority to have been put to Mr
Maguire in a straightforward way and the Authority considers that he had adequate opportunity to address
the issues. Those were the relevant matters requiring balance.
In response to the complaint that the programme should have included balancing material from people who
enjoyed smoking, the Authority notes that the Tobacco Institute has not made clear what further
information was available from the industry or from smokers that would have illuminated better the points
under discussion. Apart from information the Tobacco Institute said was given to Assignment programme
makers about the tobacco industry’s support of a campaign to reduce smoking among young people, no
other content appears to have been presented by the Tobacco Institute to the programme makers for
inclusion in the programme. The Authority concurs with TVNZ’s observation that it is no longer debatable
that smoking has harmful effects, and TVNZ was under no obligation to revisit that issue.
As to the anti-smoking campaign information relating to children, the Authority accepts that its inclusion in
the programme might have shown both the Tobacco Institute and the tobacco companies in a better light
and that, given the programme’s overall emphasis, it was arguably relevant. However, the Authority
accepts that its inclusion was a matter for the editorial judgment for Assignment’s programme makers and it
considers the failure to refer to that information was not sufficient in the circumstances to justify a finding
of imbalance or partiality."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand (Institute) complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority of New Zealand (Authority) that Television New Zealand (TVNZ) had broadcasted a documentary about the tobacco industry, which allegedly portrayed tobacco industry executives in an inaccurate and unbalanced manner and encouraged employment discrimination of Maori women by depicting them as heavy smokers. The Institute claimed that such distortions violated broadcasting laws, which require standards of accuracy and reasonableness in reporting. The Authority dismissed the complaint, finding TVNZ did not present inaccurate information because the documentary adequately distinguished statements of opinion from fact. The Authority also found that TVNZ had not presented an unbalanced depiction of the tobacco industry because TVNZ's focus on the industry was "peripheral" to the program's larger anti-smoking theme. The Authority further found that the comments made about Maori women and smoking were too tenuous to subject Maori women to employment discrimination.