Search Rapua

ComplaintHolmes – air accident – advice for travellers to dress as for a bonfire – offensive – sensational – distasteful FindingsStandard G14 – not applicable Standard G16 – perhaps flippant comments but would not cause alarm Standard G20 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 3 November 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm, gave advice to travellers about how to improve their chances of surviving an aircraft disaster. The item followed an aircraft accident in Taipei. R P Worthington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the subject matter had been handled in a distasteful manner, and was inflammatory and biased. In the complainant’s view, the way in which the item had been written was particularly offensive....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 1. Holmes – 18 and 19 November 2003 – complainant director of Network Visas NZ Ltd – in dispute with 13 Romanian students – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – not company’s registered office – complainant given inadequate opportunity to respond – a number of factual inaccuracies – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair 2. Holmes – 18 November 2003 – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – after broadcast, complainant visited by landlord – complainant’s wife who operates beauty business from the address felt intimidated – alleged breach of privacy 3....

SummaryAn item on Holmes examined "Operation Youthcare", a police and community initiative dealing with some problems arising from children and young people frequenting the city centre of Nelson at night. Part of the filming took place in the police station where a number of young people were being held or questioned. It was reported that, in some cases, their parents were summoned to the station. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 June 1999, commencing at 7. 00pm. G complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his and his daughter’s privacy were breached by the filming. Both he and his daughter were identifiable, he wrote. He also complained that the broadcast of the details of a private conversation between his daughter and a police officer breached her privacy....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-040:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-040 PDF314. 19 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-102:McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-102 PDF330. 38 KB...

ComplaintHolmes – apology from Mr Holmes for comments he made about UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Newstalk ZB – apology said to be unbalanced, inaccurate and breached requirements for law and order Findings Standard 2 – not applicable – decline to determine Standard 4 – personal statement – balance not an issue – decline to determine Standard 5 – no inaccuracy – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Paul Holmes, the host of Holmes broadcast on TV One on weekdays at 7. 00pm, made a personal statement on Holmes on 29 September 2003 about some comments he had made on Newstalk ZB. Among some other comments made on Newstalk ZB, he had described the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as a “cheeky darkie”. His comments had received extensive media coverage....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-044:Hansen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-044 PDF347. 71 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-074–076:New Zealand Shooters Rights Association Inc, Otago-Southland Firearms Coalition and Beltowski and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-074, 1992-075, 1992-076 PDF1. 9 MB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/94 Dated the 18th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDWARD MALCOLM and OTHERS of Nelson Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-154 Dated the 27th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaint by MINISTER OF HOUSING (HON MURRAY McCULLY) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintHolmes – item on Erotica exhibition – offensive behaviour Findings: Standard G6 – no uphold Standard G7 – not applicable Standard G11 – not applicable Standard G12 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Holmes item broadcast on TV One on 4 August 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm dealt with a trade fair held in Auckland entitled Erotica 2000. According to the organisers, the fair was intended to change people’s perception of erotica being sleazy and to present it as mainstream. Dennis Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast promoted the sex industry as a viable lifestyle and that TVNZ was irresponsible in screening such material. In his view, all aspects of the sex industry degraded women. In its response, TVNZ noted that the broadcast had taken a "light-hearted look" at the trade fair....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – studio discussion between presenter Paul Holmes, Pastor Brian Tamaki from the Destiny Church and Georgina Beyer MP – reaction to the street march in which Destiny Church members protested against the proposed Civil Union Bill – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – nothing inaccurate in item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item fair to all parties involved – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Holmes on TV One on 24 August 2004 at 7pm included a studio discussion involving the presenter, Pastor Brian Tamaki from the Destiny Church and Georgina Beyer MP. [2] The discussion concerned the street march through Wellington the previous day in which Destiny Church members protested against the proposed Civil Union Bill....

Complaint Holmes – interview with Prime Minister about refugees – reference to Nauru as a pile of bird shit – offensive language – inappropriate for school children FindingsStandard G2 – crude but acceptable in context – no uphold Standard G12 – minimal impact on children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Nauru was described as a "pile of bird shit" by the presenter on Holmes when interviewing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the Government’s decision to take 150 refugees from the Tampa. The item was broadcast on Holmes on 3 September 2001 beginning at 7. 00pm. [2] Alfred Howard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the phrase was totally inappropriate and offensive. He expressed particular concern that school children would hear the language....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-083:Jones and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-083 PDF2. 47 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-013:Robertson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-013 PDF...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with central figure in reality television show There’s Something About Miriam – discussed her transsexual status and contact with contestants on show – allegedly breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – nothing indecent or distasteful to the extent of breaching standard – interview conducted appropriately given subject matter – not upheld Principle 7 (programme classification) – programme news or current affairs – not classified – was sufficiently mindful of the possibility of child viewers – no warning required as contents adequately signposted – not upheld Principle 9 (children’s interests) – news and current affairs programme not directed at children – interview conducted appropriately – sufficiently mindful of children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – panel discussion on Australian Rugby League’s punishment of John Hopoate who had assaulted other players on the field – humorous approach – breach of good taste and decency – inappropriate for children FindingsStandard G2 – context – topical and newsworthy issue – humour balanced by serious debate – no uphold Standard G12 – current affairs programme – child viewers unlikely to have been watching alone – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7pm on 29 March 2001, focussed on Australian Rugby League’s decision to suspend John Hopoate for twelve weeks. Mr Hopoate had been found guilty of conduct contrary to the true spirit of rugby league for inserting his finger into the backsides of three players during a rugby league match....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – light-hearted commentary on a TV3 presenter’s telephone call to Wellington High Court about Justice Ron Young who was hearing TV3’s appeal against some decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Holmes presenter (Paul Holmes) said that TV3’s presenter (John Campbell) had been getting it “up the chutney” at the appeal hearing – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldObservation When complaint referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) in which there is doubt whether broadcaster has had the opportunity to investigate the complaint, the Authority will clarify processes with the broadcaster before formal action initiatedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....