Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Nightline and 3 News – news items reported on release of convicted sex offender Stewart Murray Wilson – referred to Mr Wilson as “the Beast of Blenheim” and “the Beast” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to individuals and organisations so cannot be considered in relation to prisoners in general – label was assigned to Mr Wilson and the nature of his crimes many years ago and has been used extensively throughout the media – it has become a well-known nickname and the broadcaster cannot be held responsible for its continued use – broadcasts also contained Mr Wilson’s legal name – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – use of the label “the Beast of Blenheim” and…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i)) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – contained a discussion about the 'three strikes' legislation – involved only participants who opposed the legislation – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible – broadcaster upheld part of the accuracy complaint but declined to uphold remaining aspects of the complaintFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – while presenter alluded to the existence of other points of view, this did not go far enough – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present alternative viewpoints – upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – two aspects of the item were misleading in the absence of balancing or challenging comment – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure item did not mislead – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-104:Armitage and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-104 PDF313. 81 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-038:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-038 PDF226. 84 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-008 Decision No: 1996-009 Decision No: 1996-010 Dated the 8th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PITA COLE of Wellington and ANTHONY SMITH of Palmerston North and BRENT PROCTOR of Bluff Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 61/95 Dated the 6th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARION HANCOCK of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

ComplaintOmission to broadcast news about Invercargill businessman – unbalanced – deceptive programming practiceFindingsComplaint about omission to broadcast – editorial judgement – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryBrent Procter complained that local news bulletins on Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits Invercargill had failed to cover the activities of an Invercargill businessman who had been charged with fraud. He contended that in this omission the broadcaster had failed to show balance and had used deceptive programming practice in its broadcasts during the period of newsworthiness, notably between 6 March and 10 March 2000. The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, responded for both stations that broadcasting standards were not breached as the story in question had not been broadcast. Dissatisfied with TRN’s response, Mr Procter referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-046:Malley and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-046 PDF446. 44 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-120:Moffatt-Vallance and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-120 PDF383. 9 KB...

Complaint Coromandel FM – news item inaccurately reported that fire fighter was charged with drunk driving causing death – privacy of fire fighter Findings (1) Unsatisfactory complaints procedure – warning (2) Principle 8 – relevant (3) Privacy Principles (i) and (ii)– facts inaccurate, not private – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A news story broadcast more than once during the morning of 11 April 2000 on Coromandel FM reported that a named Morrinsville fire fighter had been charged with drunk driving causing death. MM, the fire fighter’s wife, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the fire fighter’s privacy by disclosing incorrect information about the offence he had been charged with. MM reported that the man had in fact been charged with careless driving causing death....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item reported on a “race row” that erupted in response to the winner of a regional Miss India New Zealand competition – allegedly inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item based on personal opinions of those who attended pageant –not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation specified in complaint – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Campbell Live was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Wednesday 13 October 2010, reported on a “race row” that had erupted in response to the winner of the Wellington Division of a Miss India New Zealand competition....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Date My Ex – reality series broadcast at 3pm contained footage of people drinking alcohol – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, liquor and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – presence of liquor in the programme was extremely brief and alcohol consumption was not glamorised – content did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly rated PGR – did not contain any material which warranted a higher rating of AO – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme’s content would not have offended the majority of viewers – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Four promos broadcast prior to 8. 30pm – three for programme Bad Girls – one for quiz show How Normal Are You? – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – Bad Girls – material suitable to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You? – material suitable to be rated G – not upheld by majority Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Bad Girls – material appropriate to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Home and Away – showed couple in bed – camera with recording light on was positioned at the end of the bed – footage briefly shown of the couple kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – programme’s themes more suited to PGR but visual depiction of them inexplicit and acceptable in G programme – majority – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 8 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Home and Away, an Australian soap opera with a G rating, was broadcast on TV3 at 5. 30pm on Friday 31 July 2009....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 82/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WHANAU SOCIAL SERVICES INC of Flaxmere Broadcaster TE REO IRIRANGI O NGATI KAHUNGUNU INC (Radio Kahungunu) J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) and section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Beach 94....

ComplaintsPromos – Mercy Peak x 3 – The Swap x 1 – Bad Girls x 1 – offensive language – classification – violence – two aspects of one complaint upheld by TVNZ – excessive violence and wrongly classified – reasons for promos advanced by TVNZ as informing and attracting viewers by using interesting and intriguing sequences FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a, Standard 7 and Guideline 7b, Standard 10 and Guideline 10c – five promos did not contain offensive language or offensive behaviour – no uphold; the four promos contained minimal violence and were not inappropriately classified – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Promos for Mercy Peak, The Swap and Bad Girls were broadcast by TVNZ at various times and on different days in April 2002....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge – “Hug-a-Ginga Day” promotion – listeners encouraged to “hug” people with red hair – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – recording of broadcast unavailable – majority of the Authority declines to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Friday 28 May 2010 was “Hug-a-Ginga Day”, run by The Edge radio station and in particular its breakfast programme, The Edge Morning Madhouse. The hosts encouraged the public to “hug” people with red hair....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....