Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 32/94 Dated the 26th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAJIT THEODORE of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

SummaryA segment of Motorway Patrol broadcast on 22 July 1999 on TV2 at 7. 30pm showed four people undertaking evidential breath tests, having been suspected of driving while intoxicated. Two had their identity concealed by electronic masking. The other two were clearly identifiable. Atihana Johns complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage of his niece being breath tested by police at the police station was unfair to her and breached her privacy because her identity had not been concealed. He complained that she had been treated in a racist and contemptible manner, and that the broadcast of the programme had caused his niece and her whanau considerable distress. His complaint that the programme breached his niece’s right to privacy was referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintHolmes – footage of English coach’s half-time speech – offensive language – unsuitable for childrenFindings(1) Standard G2 – use of language not endorsed – no uphold (2) Standard G12 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage from a soccer coach’s half-time speech to players which contained strong language was broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 27 April 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage contained repeated and gratuitous offensive language. He contended that the item was offensive and unsuitable for children. TVNZ responded that the item was linked to new research findings that such angry motivational speeches did not assist performance, and maintained that the item was of topical interest....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News ­– item on Big Wednesday Lotto draw – presenter stated that ticket holders had a one in 2. 7 million chance of winning – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item technically inaccurate – upholding the complaint would place an unjustified limitation on the broadcaster’s freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item, broadcast at 6pm on Wednesday 10 June 2009, reported on a Lotto “Big Wednesday” draw that had jackpotted to twenty million dollars. The presenter introduced the item by saying: In just over an hour, some lucky punter could be twenty million dollars richer in what would be the country’s largest ever Lotto win. Big Wednesday’s jackpotted to include twenty million dollars cash, there’s only a one in 2....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Game of Two Halves – included woman whipping a man’s partially bare buttocks – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 10 (violence) – segment was distasteful and gratuitous but upholding complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Game of Two Halves, a sports quiz show featuring two teams of various sporting personalities, screened on TV One at 9. 45pm on 1 August 2008. The teams were captained by sporting personalities Marc Ellis and Matthew Ridge. [2] At the end of the episode, the captain of the losing team had to undergo what was called the “Studio Forfeit”, in which the opposing team inflicted light-hearted punishment....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TV2 promo – on screen graphics for TV2 promo included a hazy substance wafting up the screen – allegedly represented smoke and thus breached the Smoke Free Environment Act prohibition on promoting smoking behaviourFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – promo did not promote disrespect for the law – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The imagery used in on-screen graphics to identify a television channel as TV2 included a hazy substance wafting up the screen. It was broadcast frequently at various times. Complaint[2] Brandon Orlandini complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the haze shown in the TV2 promo represented smoke. That view, he said, was shared by others and many, like him, felt a "strong urge to smoke" on seeing the promo....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that two sex scenes in Nip/Tuck were too explicit for free-to-air television and breached standards of good taste and decency. One of the scenes included a threesome involving one of the lead characters. The viewer also complained about the use of offensive language during another scene in which a "phone sex artist" discussed throat surgery with her doctor. The Broadcaster’s ResponseTVNZ argued that the scenes were acceptable in the context of an AO-rated programme screening at 9. 30pm with a warning for adult sexual material. The broadcaster said the sex scenes were important to the development of the storyline, did not contain any explicit nudity, and were not pornographic. The Authority’s DecisionAs well as the contextual factors noted above (the programme's AO classification, the warning about sexual content, the 9....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – programme focussed on forthcoming Civil Unions Bill – included a telephone poll asking viewers to respond to the question “Should gay relationships be legally recognised” – polls results found 24% in favour of gay relationships being recognised and 76% against – closing comments by host queried which polls politicians in support of the Bill were relying on – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – poll not presented as scientific – results reflected only the views of those willing to call in – limitations of poll clear – host’s comments presented as opinion not fact – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – standard not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

ComplaintEyes Wide Shut – film – screened at 9. 30pm during school holidays – sexual content – unsuitable for children Findings Standard 1 and Guideline 1a – not relevant Standard 9 and Guidelines 9a, 9b & 9c – 9. 30pm not children’s normally accepted viewing time – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Eyes Wide Shut was a film broadcast during the school holidays, on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Tuesday 21 January 2003. The film was preceded by a warning which cited "strong sexual content", "nudity" and "drug use", and it was classified AO. [2] Cherry Smith complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that by not providing sufficient information about the film prior to its broadcast, TVNZ failed to consider the interests of children....

ComplaintSpin Doctors Election Special – drama – public relations company, satirised while suggesting election campaign strategies – "piss-head" – offensive language – imitation vomit – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for older children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election special episode of Spin Doctors was broadcast at 9. 00pm on TV One on 10 July 2002. It satirised the staff of a public relations company as they were shown trying to put together election campaign strategies for a number of political parties. [2] Elaine Hadfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about some of the language used and the behaviour depicted with reference to the Prime Minister. She said that the Prime Minister deserved respect, not ridicule....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – stated that animal welfare group had gone “undercover” on a farm to investigate mistreated pigs and that it had gained access through an unlocked door – showed footage obtained by the group of sick and injured animals – allegedly in breach of law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not show the group breaking into the farm – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law by screening the footage – public interest in showing mistreatment of animals – 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 Friday 23 July, reported on new footage of pigs at a Levin farm that had been the subject of a previous TVNZ broadcast on animal welfare....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Waitangi: What Really Happened – docu-drama about events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Waitangi: What Really Happened was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 6 February 2011. The programme was a docu-drama following the events leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Rotten Shame – investigated systematic failures in the building industry that led to the leaky homes crisis – reporter door-stepped building inspector who had inspected a house eleven years earlier which had since been demolished – portion of the interview included in the programme – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsAction taken: Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter’s approach in trying to obtain comment from Mr George by door-stepping him was unfair – broadcaster’s action in upholding the complaint and apologising to the complainant in its decision was inadequate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – other aspects of the programme were not unfair to the complainant – item focused on systematic failures which led to the leaky homes crisis rather than on the…...

Leigh Pearson declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on ONE News reported on concerns around a government-funded survey of health professionals and their views on voluntary euthanasia. It said that the survey was run by researchers who support assisted dying, and that it was alleged that the research was biased and flawed. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item was unfair to the researchers involved and to the university through which the research was run, as well as inaccurate and unbalanced. Comment was sought from the university and the researchers, whose position was presented in the university’s response and fairly reported in the item....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-087:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-087 PDF842. 45 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A Fair Go item reported on the New Zealand Industrial Fuel Duty Agency (NZIFDA), a business set up to obtain refunds, on behalf of eligible customers, for excise duty placed on off-road fuel usage in some instances. A former employee of NZIFDA criticised the business and the person who ran it. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the person who ran the business, that the item was inaccurate and misleading and used ‘loaded’ language to suggest wrongdoing. The item was clearly framed from the perspective of the former employee, her comments were clearly her personal opinion, the complainant was given a reasonable opportunity to give a response, and his response was fairly included in the programme....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....

Summary A dispute between neighbours was put to the audience of You be the Judge for resolution in the episode broadcast on TV2 on 29 March 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The item included footage, filmed by the aggrieved neighbour, of two people leaving his neighbour’s home at 4. 31am. He described such visitors to his neighbour in general terms as her "zombie mates. " C, one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that he and his wife considered that the broadcast had invaded their privacy. First, he argued, the complainant should never have filmed them, and secondly, the footage should never have been broadcast. He said they also objected to being described as "zombie mates"....