Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – programme did not question CYFS’ general policy of removing foster children who had been smacked by their foster parents – wider issue about acceptability of smacking was not the controversial issue discussed in the item – reconstructions of vandalism a matter of fairness, not balance – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Distraction – British comedy quiz show in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand – contestants were required to crawl face up between the legs of several elderly nudists and then dress them in underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Distraction, a British comedy quiz programme in which the utmost is done to distract contestants from the task at hand, was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 9 September 2005. During one task, contestants were required to crawl, face up, between the legs of several elderly nudists and then dress them in underwear....

ComplaintOne News – item about gender income differences – unbalanced – inaccurate – denigration and discrimination of male employers FindingsStandard 4 – range of perspectives presented – no uphold Standard 5 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to male employers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A One News programme, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 20 June 2002, featured an item which sought to explain census figures which showed that women were earning less than their male counterparts. [2] Peter Zohrab, on behalf of the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the news item was unbalanced, inaccurate, and encouraged denigration and discrimination against male employers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast– host made comment about Asian drivers slowing down – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments provocative and borderline but threshold for restriction on freedom of expression not reached – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Wednesday 16 June 2010, the host Paul Henry interviewed a representative from AA Insurance about a recent survey which investigated the top ten frustrations of drivers on New Zealand roads. [2] At the conclusion of the interview, Mr Henry discussed his biggest driving frustration with his co-host Pippa Wetzell, who also talked about what frustrated her while driving....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-023 Decision No: 1996-024 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY and MICHAEL GIBSON of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint Motorway Patrol – complainant convicted of offences arising from accident – incident highly dramatised – complainant’s identity disclosed – breach of privacyFindingsSection 4(1)(c) – Privacy Principles applied:Principle i – no private facts disclosed – no uphold Principle iii – no unnecessary intrusion – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Motorway Patrol was broadcast weekly on TV2 at 8. 00pm on Tuesday evenings. Part of the episode on 28 August, and the entire episode on 4 September 2001, described the police investigation into a fatal motorway crash which resulted in the complainant pleading guilty to serious driving offences and being sentenced to imprisonment. [2] Through his solicitor, the complainant complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-110 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALAN MOIR of Dunedin TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 31/95 Dated the 11th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 94/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R J ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-154 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN TURNEY of Kumeu Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – cartoon involving “King Dick” who ejaculated onto the face of a Chinese character – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – cartoon satirised anti-Asian views of former Prime Minister – contextual factors – 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. In an episode broadcast on TV One at 10. 30pm on 20 July 2008, the programme reviewed past Prime Ministers of New Zealand, including Robert Muldoon and Michael Savage, also mentioning Helen Clark (the then Prime Minister) and John Key (the National Party leader)....

ComplaintOne News – CCS referred to as Crippled Children’s Society – obsolete – discriminatory – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 5 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – denigration or discrimination not encouraged – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The return to Wellington of night-club entertainer, Carmen, was dealt with during an item on One News broadcast on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 25 October 2002. The reporter pointed to one building bearing the CCS logo which, he said, had been a brothel and was now used by the Crippled Children’s Society. [2] Russell Vickery, a National Board Representative with NZCCS, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the organisation was the New Zealand CCS Incorporated, it was incorrect and unfair to describe it as the Crippled Children’s Society....

ComplaintFair Go – rare breeds of sheep put in care as owner had cancer – organiser of care took two flocks herself – owner sought to recover sheep – care organiser believed she owned sheep – no contract – inaccurate – unclear – unbalanced – editing which distorted FindingsStandard G4 – inadequate opportunity to respond – uphold Standards G1, G3, G6, G7, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary David Tuart, an owner of some rare sheep species, required treatment for cancer. Dr Beverley Trowbridge, a fellow breeder of rare sheep species, arranged for his flocks to be distributed among other farmers. After Mr Tuart had been treated, Dr Trowbridge refused to return some of the sheep as she believed that she had been given ownership of them....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Rugby World Cup Semi-Final: France v Wales – commentator used the word “Jesus” with reference to Wales being given a penalty kick – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and law and order FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “Jesus” used as exclamation and spontaneous reaction during a live sports programme – not used in derogatory or abusive manner – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During the Rugby World Cup Semi-Final between France and Wales, broadcast on TV One at 8....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-038:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-038 PDF377. 55 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Seven Sharp reported on Kiwis living as ‘second class citizens’ in Australia. At the end of the item, one of the presenters commented, ‘So we hope for some changes in Australia, and until then I guess all you can do is find some Australians over here and be mean to them. ’ He poked his Australian co-presenter in the arm, and the presenters all laughed. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment encouraged denigration and discrimination against Australian people. The comment did not carry any invective or ill-will. It was typical of the usual humour and banter that occurs on Seven Sharp, and viewers would have interpreted it as a light-hearted joke, not a serious call to action....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....