Search Rapua

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – Te Karere – Eye to Eye – Marae – all items concerning emergence of the Māori Party or the by-election in Te Tai Hauauru – complainant was candidate for Te Tai Hauauru seat – when appeared on Te Karere complainant’s words were translated into te reo Māori – allegedly in breach of law and order standard as contrary to Bill of Rights Act – complainant’s candidacy received minimal coverage from other TVNZ news and current affairs – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay, Flynny and Jacqui – host told a personal anecdote about a prank she committed in her youth, namely setting off a fire alarm “resulting in all of Timaru’s fire engines turning up” – allegedly in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – anecdote was a light-hearted recollection of host’s actions in her youth, with educational message – host made comments condemning her own behaviour and noted the repercussions – story was intended to humour and entertain and did not invite imitation or otherwise encourage listeners to break the law or condone criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] At approximately 2....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Hauraki Breakfast, hosts Jeremy Wells and Matt Heath discussed smoking marijuana, in relation to several National Party MPs who had recently publicly stated they had never tried it. The hosts took calls from listeners who had also never tried marijuana and asked them why they had never tried it. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast promoted and encouraged the use of marijuana. The Authority found the broadcast amounted to a comedic discussion of smoking marijuana that did not go beyond established audience expectations of Radio Hauraki, Hauraki Breakfast or the hosts. The Authority noted that humour and satire are important aspects of free speech, and found that on this occasion, there was insufficient risk of harm to justify limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that a hip hop song contained racial slurs (including the n-word). The Authority noted the broadcaster apologised to the complainant for the offence caused and removed the song from its playlist. The Authority considered this action was sufficient and, in all the circumstances, it was not necessary to determine the complaint. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Privacy...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a Newshub Live at 6pm item on the Paralympics depicting a hug between sisters Lisa Adams and Dame Valerie Adams. The complaint was that the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests, and law and order standards as the Paralympics occurred amid the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst various physical distancing restrictions were in force. The Authority found the item did not breach the standards specified as it did not encourage non-compliance with COVID-19 restrictions, nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence, or harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Law and Order...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-147 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHERYL PHILPS of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussed Marc Ellis’s promotional stunt for his new business which involved discharging explosives on Rangitoto Island – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – not clear from the item that the stunt amounted to criminal activity – item did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify which individuals or organisations were treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 20/20, entitled “Guerrilla Marc[eting]”, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Thursday 15 November 2007, discussed the first major guerrilla marketing stunt that had taken place in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – presenter commented that “the white settlers were intent on fucking over the natives” in New Zealand – pretended to urinate on a public sculpture – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and balance standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – no realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – programme was not a news, current affairs or factual programme – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – use of the phrases “Prime Minister of England” and “future King of England” – allegedly inaccurateTe Karere – use of the phrase “Te Kuini o Ingarangi” instead of “Te Kuini o Aotearoa” allegedly inaccurate and in breach of law and orderOne News – use of the phrase “Queen of England” allegedly inaccurate and in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 – nothing in the items inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldStandard 5 – phrase in common usage – viewers would have known who was being referred to – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] On 8 April 2005 at 6pm, Close Up broadcast an item covering the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, and the funeral of Pope John Paul II....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a promo which contained a joke that New Zealand’s duck hunting season had been off to a bad start because ‘someone accidentally shot Trevor Mallard’. Viewers would have understood the comment as a joke, and it was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or encourage illegal activity, nor did it contain unduly disturbing violent content. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order...

The Authority has declined to determine five complaints about different Newshub Live broadcasts under several standards, on the basis they were trivial, vexatious, or in all the circumstances, did not warrant determination. Decline to determine (section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – trivial and vexatious, and section 11(b) in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy, Children’s Interests, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Programme Information, Law and Order...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint regarding a broadcast including an interview with a lawyer who was represented as a ‘political commentator’. The complainant made several unsubstantiated allegations to the effect the lawyer was corrupt, and the broadcaster should have disclosed their alleged corruption. The Authority considered the complaint should not be determined in the circumstances as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preference on who should be interviewed, and how they should be portrayed, which are matters of editorial discretion not capable of being resolved by the broadcasting standards complaints process. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Law and Order, Balance...

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin?’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a Newshub item interviewing two ‘dare-devils’ who engage in ‘roof-topping’, an activity which the New Zealand Police issued a ‘stern’ warning about. The Authority found the item did not actively promote or glamorise illegal behaviour as it was made clear the activity was illegal and ill-advised. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached in the context. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Children’s Interests, Good Taste and Decency, Alcohol, Balance...

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…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Breakfast, in which the hosts and viewer feedback discussed people stealing at supermarket self-service checkouts by putting in the wrong code for items they are purchasing. The Authority found the programme did not actively encourage viewers to steal or break the law in breach of the law and order standard. Across the programme as a whole, the hosts and viewers offered a range of views on the ethics of stealing at self-checkouts, including strong views against such behaviour, and clearly acknowledged it was ‘theft’ and illegal. The tone of the discussion was consistent with audience expectations of Breakfast and its hosts, and would not have unduly offended or distressed viewers, so the good taste and decency standard was also not breached....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under several standards in relation to a segment on The Project. In the broadcast, comedian Justine Smith joked about throwing a half-eaten apple at anti-abortion protesters. The complainants alleged the segment was offensive, promoted violence and criminal activity, and discriminated against anti-abortion protesters. The Authority found that while the statements may have been offensive to some – in the context of the broadcast as a whole, taking into account audience expectations of the show, and the lack of any specific call to act – the alleged harm caused by the broadcast did not reach the thresholds required to restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression under any of the nominated standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, and Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on group of duck hunters – hunters shown drinking alcohol and using firearms – brands of alcohol visible – man shown taking his pants off and diving onto a blow-up doll – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – item contained liquor promotion that was not socially responsible – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of man with blow-up doll and mixing of firearms and alcohol strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard…...