Search Rapua

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. 1993-138:Leckey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-138 PDF864. 85 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item on New Zealand’s poor record of child abuse – recited list of recent cases of abuse and murder – presenter referred to “father” as perpetrator – allegedly inaccurate and unbalanced Findings Principle 4 (balance) – balance aspect of complaint more appropriately dealt with under Principle 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact rather than particular perspective or opinion – not upheld Principle 5 (accuracy) – item later clarified that perpetrators often male figure other than natural father – overall item not inaccurate – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 30 June 2004, concerned New Zealand’s record of child murder and abuse....

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...

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-042:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-042 PDF365. 34 KB...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – item about Tana Umaga’s appointment as All Black captain – reference to Mr Umaga’s dreadlocks – presenter allegedly implied that dreadlocked sportspeople are incompetent and engage in sexually deviant behaviour and law breaking – allegedly breached standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter’s comments innocuous – neither indecent nor in bad taste – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance), Standard 5 (accuracy) and Standard 6 (fairness) – matters complained about not expressed or implied in the broadcast – no basis for any of the complainant’s allegations in presenter’s comments – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-015:Perry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-015 PDF1008. 74 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-139:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-139 PDF295. 26 KB...

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....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on art piece commissioned for Venice Biennale at cost of $500,000 in public money – interview with Peter Biggs of Creative New Zealand – allegedly unfair to Mr Biggs and misleading/inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – not unbalanced – Mr Biggs was able to present his view – not upheld Standard 5 – item did not suggest that braying toilet was the work to be exhibited – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – Mr Biggs not treated unfairly – as a seasoned media commentator he was able to get his point across – not upheld Standard 8 – not relevant – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-150 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LIEUTENANT COMMANDER B I FOTHERINGHAM of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-007:Wright and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-007 PDF444. 29 KB...

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with witness – anti-police – unbalanced – partial – prejudice to fair hearing FindingsStandard G6 – eyewitness account necessarily focused on one perspective – balance achieved over time – no uphold Standard G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A witness to the shooting of a young man by a policeman in Waitara was interviewed in an item on Holmes broadcast on 17 July 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The item recorded that there was some discrepancy between what the eyewitness had told the police immediately after the incident and his statement to a private investigator some days later. Martyn Stewart complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was an "emotive display of pure sensationalism" which would have incited the public to be biased against the police....

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person flying New Zealand flag at home in dispute with neighbours – complainants who are neighbours named and their home shown – complainants have long history of community service – private facts disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (Privacy) Privacy Principles (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) – dispute about flag had been heard in the District Court – accordingly not private – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A dispute between Mr Brian McGinty of Orewa and his neighbours, including Sir Ross and Lady Jansen, was dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 18 March 2004 beginning at 7. 00pm. The dispute was about Mr McGinty’s neighbours objecting to his desire to fly a New Zealand flag on his property....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-098:Meroiti and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-098 PDF258. 04 KB...

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – interview with Winston Peters MP about free dinner in restaurant partly owned by Peter Simunovich – meal occurred while Parliamentary Select Committee investigated Simunovich Fisheries – Mr Peters member of that committee – possibility of corruption suggested by others interviewed – allegedly unbalanced, impartial and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – Mr Peters given ample opportunity to answer allegations – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – “free” fish dinner allegation acceptable basis for programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and Guideline 6b – Mr Peters given ample notice of expected contribution – devil’s advocate approach acceptable in view of serious allegation – Mr Peters given ample time to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – bargain priced Persian rugs – false statements – implied discounts not genuine Findings(1) Standard G1 – no express or implied inaccuracy – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – no implication of fraudulent misrepresentation – no unfairness to complainant or its director – no uphold (3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 22 November 1999 featured Persian rugs sold by SilkRoutes Artifacts and Carpets Ltd. It was reported that rugs sold by SilkRoutes were advertised as "massively discounted". Customer concerns about the value of the rugs were raised, in particular by the purchasers of a Qum rug. SilkRoutes, through its solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate, unbalanced, inflammatory and unfair....