Search Rapua

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the appointment of Vienna Richards as Niu FM’s news editor – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – focus of the item was the appointment and the perception it had created – Ms Moore’s comments were sufficient to answer the reporter’s questions – reporter did not need to interview Ms Richards or detail her experience in journalism – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not misled viewers by omitting information – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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...

SummaryA repeat broadcast of the programme Who Dares Wins was broadcast on TV2 on 10 December 1998 at 7. 30pm. A Melbourne man responded to a dare to appear on stage with the male revue troupe Manpower. Ms Dawn Shelford of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, on behalf of the group Preserving Communication Standards. In her view the broadcast was offensive, particularly during family viewing time. In its response, TVNZ noted that the programme complained about had been the subject of an earlier complaint to the Authority which had not been upheld. It advised that the arguments it advanced then remained valid. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Shelford referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on the standard of care in rest homes in New Zealand – producer went undercover as a caregiver for five days in a rest home on Auckland’s North Shore – presenter and undercover producer raised a number of concerns regarding the quality of care being provided in the rest home – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – owners provided with an adequate opportunity to respond to allegations – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide significant viewpoints on the controversial issue discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – undercover producer’s opinions and impressions not statements of fact – decline to determine whether undercover producer contracted an MRSA infection from rest home – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – legitimate use of covert filming – in the public interest to broadcast the material – item treated…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Facelift – item featured a skit in which an actor pretended to be Camilla Parker-Bowles singing a parody version of “Candle in the Wind” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – content of programme clearly satirical – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the comedy programme Facelift, broadcast on TV One at 10. 10pm on 3 September 2007, included a skit featuring a person acting as Camilla Parker-Bowles. She was shown singing a parody version of “Candle in the Wind”, supposedly in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales. Complaint [2] Brintyn Smith made a formal complaint about the episode to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the skit breached standards of good taste and decency....

Summary Footage of a man confessing, in a police interview room, to having murdered his daughter was included in a 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV One on 3 October 1999, beginning at 7. 30pm. The man subsequently killed himself. The Hope family, who are related to the man and his daughter, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the broadcast was an invasion of their privacy and had caused "an immense amount of distress and heartache" for the family. Their major concern, they wrote, was how the broadcaster had managed to obtain the tape of the confession when that was the property of the police....

ComplaintPrivate Investigators – item on alleged employee theft – police diversion – privacy – identificationFindings(1) Privacy – majority finding that complainant identified – no private facts revealed – police diversion scheme does not provide anonymity – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Private Investigators was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 4 July 2000. Private Investigators is a series about the activities of private investigators in New Zealand. SL, through her lawyer, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached her privacy. The programme had included an item about alleged employee theft at an Auckland delicatessen....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Bank Young Farmer Contest – included among a series of questions to the contestants was “The Queen of England’s husband is the Duke of…? ” – answer “Edinburgh” – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint similar to past complaints – in view of comments in earlier decisions, on this occasion decline to determine as trivial This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The National Bank Young Farmer Contest, screened at 9. 40pm on TV One on 8 July 2006, included a number of “quick fire” quiz questions put to the contestants. One question asked “The Queen of England’s husband is the Duke of…? ” The answer was given as “Edinburgh”. Complaint [2] Archie Lowes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the answer, the Duke of Edinburgh, was inaccurate....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Invader Zim – cartoon programme – allegedly in breach of children’s interestsFindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – not likely to disturb or alarm children – sufficiently unrealistic – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A cartoon programme called Invader Zim screened on TV2 at 7:45am on Sunday 17 July 2005. The cartoon follows Zim, a character bent on taking over the universe. After nearly destroying his own planet, he is banished to Earth where he attends “skool”, while furthering his plot to exterminate all humans. Complaint [2] Timothy Bennett Mace complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was not suitable for children....

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 1989Without a Trace – promo showed a woman interrogating a beaten man, who was sitting on a chair, his hands tied and bleeding – woman aimed a nail gun at the man’s groin and stated “…I will nail more than your hand to the chair” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme classification, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo correctly classified as PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority agreed that the broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo was brief – did not contain explicit violence – majority considered broadcaster exercised…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about former foster parents who had pleaded guilty to smacking a foster child on the hand with a wooden spoon – had originally faced a number of other abuse charges – CYFS removed two children from their care and said they were no longer suitable foster parents – interviews with former foster parents and CYFS representative – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item discussed controversial issue of public importance because it dealt with the actions of government department charged with the care of vulnerable children – TVNZ not required to detail nature of more serious allegations – not required to give further information about CYFS’ standard processes – item omitted critical information about evidential interviews of children – left viewers without a clear understanding of the reasons behind CYFS’ actions – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – incident involving alleged doctor-on-doctor assault – interviewee commented on profession’s reaction to incident – three complaints – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair to doctor and othersFindings Standard 4 (balance) – unbalanced – Mr Ngaei’s viewpoint not advanced – reasonable efforts to obtain his views not made – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Mr Ngaei – upheld Standard 6 (discrimination) – item did not encourage discrimination against doctors – not upheld Orders$1,700 costs to complainant $2,500 costs to CrownThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Holmes broadcast at 7....

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....

ComplaintM2 – "One Night in New York City" – music video – theme of drug rape – portrayal of criminal sexual activity – breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 – context, including offensive language and behaviour – majority uphold Standard 2 – Guideline 2e – anti-social behaviour portrayed but not glamorised – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A music video by the band The Horrorists, entitled "One Night in New York City", was broadcast on M2 on TV2 at approximately 4. 25am on 10 February 2002. The lyrics told the story of a 15-year-old girl who visited New York City, and went home with a man she met at a nightclub. The man gave her a pill, which she took, and then she asked him what it was....

Complaint American Beauty – film - numerous sexual references – offensive – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9c – broadcaster was mindful of children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The film American Beauty was screened on TV2 at 8. 30pm on Sunday 10 November 2002. The film is about a bored middle-aged man who becomes "love-struck" with one of his daughter’s friends. His fantasies lead him to turn his life upside down. [2] Murray Baylis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sexual references and sexual messages in the film would be offensive to many New Zealanders, especially to people aged 12 – 16 years....

ComplaintBreakfast – replay of item from children’s programme What Now? – parody of political parties – "The Farty Party" – excessive use of fart jokes – breach of good taste and decency – not mindful of effect of broadcast on children FindingsStandard G2 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard G12 – Breakfast not children's normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] During the Breakfast programme broadcast on TV One on 11 November 2001, an item was replayed from the children’s show What Now? Using a parody of Breakfast presenter Mike Hosking, two of the What Now? presenters acted out the role of political party leaders in a sketch designed to give young children an idea of what was involved in electioneering....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – 24 December item interviewed woman whose husband was killed by a drunk driver – 7 January item spoke to youths appearing in court after being arrested for drink-driving – both items allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items were straightforward news reports – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – not misleading to omit discussion of the points raised by the complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....