Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-065 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D A ARMSTRONG of Timaru Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-074 Dated the 19th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by E A HAWKER of Piha Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-105 Dated the 10th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND MINERALS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary Storylines which ran through five episodes of Shortland Street broadcast at 7. 00pm during the week 31 August to 4 September 1998, concerned the intimate relationships of three sets of characters. The first storyline featured the relationship between a 17 year old female and a 28 old male, the second portrayed a male character who was painting a nude portrait of his partner, and the third concerned a male character who manipulated a young woman with whom he wished to have sex. Ms Barker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the storylines were offensive because they portrayed sex outside marriage as acceptable, and failed to examine the damaging consequences of such behaviour. She considered that the programmes’ PGR classification and 7. 00pm timeslot were inappropriate, as many younger children could still be viewing at that time....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Tonight – item about washing machine for dogs – at the end of the item the presenter said, “And then you hang them by their front paws on the washing line” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comment was intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News Tonight, broadcast on TV One at 11pm on Wednesday 17 March 2010, reported on the invention of a washing machine for dogs in Japan. A dog was shown being washed and then blow-dried in the machine. Following the story, the news reader said, holding up his hands, “And then you hang them by their front paws on the washing line....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item discussed “all-out war” between the Wellington Mayor and a city councillor – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of psychologist trivialised the situation but viewers unlikely to have taken her comments seriously – Mayor given adequate opportunity to comment – not unfair to Ms Prendergast or to the Council – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 16 July 2009, was introduced by the presenter as follows: What on earth is going on at Wellington City Council?...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on an Auckland homicide – showed victim’s wife and three teenage children being driven away in police car – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – footage of police car was taken in a public place – victim’s family likely vulnerable but disclosure of footage not highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 September 2008, it was reported that a man had been stabbed and killed in Auckland. In the following item, One News reported from the suburb in which the man lived and interviewed one of his work colleagues, a man who witnessed the incident, and a member of the Auckland Police....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sex and Lies in Cambodia – documentary about New Zealand man jailed in Cambodia for the rape of five teenage girls – interviewed a Swiss man who was assisting with the case and who had been accused but acquitted of similar crimes – filmed man with a hidden camera – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle 3 – broadcast of hidden camera footage in breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in the footage – upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – man treated unfairly by broadcast of hidden camera footage – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $5,000. 00 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Medical drama series Bodies – scene involving woman giving birth and then having difficulty delivering placenta – woman’s genitals explicitly shown – allegedly breach of good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Bodies is a medical drama series set in the obstetric and gynaecological ward of a fictional English hospital. The episode screened on TV One on 9 May 2006 at 9. 30pm commenced with the story of a woman giving birth. Following the birth scenes, the woman was shown lying on her back with her legs elevated in stirrups, awaiting the delivery of the placenta. When the placenta was eventually delivered, the woman suffered a uterine inversion, whereby the uterus is literally turned inside-out and appears outside the vagina....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up at 7 item – item on “schoolies” week in Queensland, Australia – item included scenes of alcohol consumption, “mooning” and partying – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item was newsworthy – mildly offensive conduct in this context did not amount to a breach of the standard – Not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up at 7, shown on TV One at 7pm on 6 December 2004, reported on “schoolies” week in Queensland, and showed newly graduated high school students gathering at beach resorts on the Gold Coast for a week of celebrations. Complaint [2] Donald McDonald complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached broadcasting standards....

ComplaintHow’s Life? – one panellist said to have encouraged people aged 13–14 years to have sex and to ignore parents and the law – complaint that comments offensive and unfair to children. Findings Panellist said questioners were responsible in seeking advice – did not encourage lawbreaking – suggested seeking parental advice – other panellists said that questioners should not have sex Standard 1 – not upheld Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm and repeated at 9. 00 the following morning, featured a panel of local celebrities who answered questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast at 9. 00am on 29 September 2003 considered a question from two young teenagers who asked whether they should have sex....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – item about Government surplus – phrase “slush fund” used in reference to Government surplus – allegedly inaccurate and inappropriate as it suggested corruption on part of the GovernmentFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – in context phrase is accepted colloquial expression to describe discretionary funds – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Breakfast on TV One 26 May 2004 dealt with the issue of the Government surplus and the 2004 budget process. The reporter referred to the surplus as a “slush fund. ” Complaint [2] Mike Frawley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, regarding the use of the term “slush fund. ” Mr Frawley, citing the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, said that the term “slush fund” raised perceptions of “bribery or illicit political activities....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, characters Lincoln and Jack took Nicole out for drinks to take her mind off her attacker. Lincoln, who was previously in a relationship with a man, was shown taking an illegal drug which he gave to Nicole. Later in the episode, Lincoln and Nicole were shown in bed together. In the episode broadcast the following evening, Jack asked Lincoln about being gay and sleeping with Nicole. Lincoln replied that he did not have to ‘put a label on it’, saying, ‘I’m just me’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme’s portrayal of Lincoln’s sexuality, by a straight actor, could have damaging effects on young viewers or those struggling with their sexuality....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that an episode of Sunday about voluntary ‘DIY’ sperm donation in New Zealand, and in particular the complainant’s history of frequent sperm donations, breached broadcasting standards relating to privacy, fairness and accuracy. The Authority found there was a high level of public interest in discussing the risks associated with using DIY sperm donors, as well as CA’s extensive donation history in particular, which outweighed the potential harm to CA. The Authority concluded the programme did not disclose any private information about CA, and overall CA was treated fairly and was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment in response to allegations made about him in the programme. Doorstepping CA (approaching him on the street with cameras rolling) was not unfair in the circumstances, and he willingly engaged in a lengthy interview with the reporter....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast of the personal views of certain celebrities who supported changing the flag resulted in an unbalanced and partial programme. While the item featured several celebrities in support of the alternative flag, it also mentioned some who supported the current flag. In the context of the item this was a sufficient acknowledgement of significant viewpoints on the issue. Furthermore, viewers could reasonably be expected to be aware of the different perspectives on the flag referendum issue. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item discussed whether celebrity endorsement of any particular flag would sway public voting in the New Zealand flag referendum....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on the stories of two families (A and B) and their experiences with The Welcome Home Foundation (now called the Home Funding Group) (together, HFG). Both families claimed that they lost money through their involvement with HFG, which provided financial support and the ability to hold money ‘on trust’ towards a deposit for a home. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the director of HFG, Luke Atkins, that the broadcast breached the accuracy, fairness and balance standards. While one aspect of the item was found to be inaccurate by the broadcaster, the Authority found that the action taken in the circumstances was sufficient....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse by a man, P against a 90-year-old woman, E. The programme also featured P's 'mentor' (M), a spokesperson from E's bank and comment from E and her grandson. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was unfair, inaccurate and unbalanced. Both P and M were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment, the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure the item was accurate and the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance which required the presentation of alternative views. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a case of alleged elder financial abuse....