Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-135 Decision No: 1996-136 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CHILDREN�S MEDIA WATCH and G A SPARKS of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-006 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by N E ARCHER of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2011-485-840 PDF137. 27 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – discussed anniversary of massacre at Aramoana – interviewed policeman who was involved – said “fucking” twice – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority’s research suggests majority of viewers would consider “fucking” unacceptable before 8....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Packed to the Rafters – woman briefly put her hand down the front of her boyfriend’s pants, who jumped and exclaimed “You’ve got chilli on your hands! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – scene was fleeting and playful – intended to be humorous rather than sexual – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – content was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – promo correctly rated PGR and screened during Coronation Street – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo did not contain AO material and would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under sections 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Michael Laws Talkback – Mr Laws interviewed the complainant, Karen Batchelor, a spokesperson for the American Pit Bull Terrier Association – Mr Laws accused Ms Batchelor of misquoting statistics and making untrue statements – Mr Laws made comments such as “you’re just as bad as your dogs” and, “can you wear a muzzle” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards – broadcaster upheld part of the Standard 6 complaint – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) and Action Taken – Mr Laws took an overly aggressive approach and continuously interrupted the complainant – he made comments that were personally abusive and accused the complainant of lying – overall complainant was treated unfairly – serious breach of fairness standard – action taken by broadcaster was insufficient – upheld Standard 5…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported that an increasing number of beneficiaries were being banned from Work and Income offices due to heightened security as a result of the fatal shootings at a WINZ office in 2014. The reporter interviewed a beneficiary who said that this was ‘no surprise’ because dealing with WINZ is ‘frustrating’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments from the beneficiary were irresponsible and encouraged violence. The focus of the item was on security at WINZ offices and the beneficiary was relating his personal experience; the item did not advocate violence....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-046–051:Whyte and 5 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-046–051 PDF1. 94 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-042:Talbot and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-042 PDF695. 01 KB...

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

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-82 Decision No: 1996-83 Dated the 1st day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by HEALTHLINK SOUTH of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2010-485-002008 PDF3....

SummaryThe Sunday movie broadcast at 8. 30pm on TV2 on 20 September 1998 was Desperado. It starred Antonio Banderas and was classified by TVNZ as AO. Ms McIlroy complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast of a grossly violent movie at that hour breached broadcasting standards. She contended that as the film contained sustained violence and included numerous scenes where people were killed, it breached the requirement to avoid portraying excessive violence. In addition she complained that as the star of the film was popular with young people, they would have been keen to watch it. TVNZ observed first that the film was classified as AO, which clearly indicated to viewers that it was intended for an adult audience. It was also preceded by a warning. Acknowledging that it contained a good deal of violence, TVNZ submitted that most of it verged on being farcical....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-086 Dated the 6th day of August 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paddle Pop Begins – children’s cartoon – main character’s name was the same as a brand of iceblock – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 8 (responsible programming) – accept that Streets logo and name of character amounted to branding or marketing – however programme was clearly a children’s cartoon rather than an “advertisement” for the purposes of guideline 8d – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme would not have alarmed or disturbed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of the children’s cartoon Paddle Pop Begins was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 25am on 13 October 2011....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]3D reported on the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil, and the stories of several girls and their families who believed that they had suffered serious health problems after being vaccinated. It also reported on the as-yet-unexplained sudden deaths of two girls who had recently received the vaccine. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the maker of Gardasil alleging that the programme misleadingly suggested that Gardasil was unsafe and thus deceived and disadvantaged the public when there was no evidential basis for doing so. The story was well-reported, was measured in its presentation and gave viewers a range of information, which enabled them to make up their own minds about the vaccine. The Authority emphasised the high public interest in the story and in giving a platform for minority voices to be heard....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report discussed Mark Lundy's retrial for the murder of his wife and daughter. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item incorrectly inferred that Mr Lundy had actively been seeking increased life insurance on the day the murders occurred, and that this was unfair. The item was a straightforward report of the latest evidence given at trial and the item as a whole clarified the meaning of its opening statements. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Law and Order, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Morning Report discussed Mark Lundy's retrial for the murder of his wife and daughter. The item reported that 'Mark Lundy's retrial has been told that he tried to increase his family's life insurance just hours before his wife and daughter were hacked to death'....