Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-169 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOUGLAS JENKIN of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R M McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-025 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH (Hon Jenny Shipley) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Masterchef NZ – three teams shown taking part in cooking competition – all teams used fresh crayfish as an ingredient – live crayfish shown accidentally being dropped onto the floor –one contestant placed three live crayfish into boiling water – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standardsClose Up – item on how to kill a crayfish correctly – interviewed the Masterchef NZ judge and contestant who boiled the crayfish – using a live crayfish the chef showed viewers how to kill it humanely – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Masterchef NZ correctly classified G – Close Up was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – neither programme required…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Popetown – animated comedy set in a fictional Vatican City – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme informationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed about an identifiable person – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a “news, current affairs or factual programme” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – high protection given to satire and comedy – programme had clear satirical and humorous intent – did not encourage denigration – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – not applicable – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] C4 broadcast an episode of Popetown at 9....

ComplaintPromo – 60 Minutes – "pissed off" – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the effects of broadcast on children – broadcaster not mindful of explicit material in promo FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – G rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for 60 Minutes was broadcast on TV One at 6. 50pm on 10 November 2001. The promo was for an item on Dean Barker, New Zealand’s America’s Cup skipper. [2] Michael Hooker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about Mr Barker’s use in the promo of the phrase "pissed off". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Complaint60 Minutes – item on Ritalin – offensive – irresponsible – failed to respect principles of law – likely to place children at riskFindings(1) Standard G5 – no disrespect for law evidenced – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – public interest – current affairs – audience expectations unlikely to have been exceeded – no uphold (3) Standard G12 – not relevant – no uphold (4) Standard G16 – public interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on the black market for the prescription drug Ritalin was broadcast on 60 Minutes on TV One on 11 June 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. On behalf of ADHD. org....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-078:Toomer and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-078 PDF270. 33 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on aftershocks in Christchurch – was introduced with the statement “it’s just what Christchurch does not want to hear, warnings that a big one, seven on the Richter scale, is probably coming” – included extract of interview with geologist – allegedly in breach of standards relating to accuracy, responsible programming and good taste and decency FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – introductory statement inaccurately summarised geologist’s opinion – overstated the prediction of a magnitude seven earthquake by suggesting a high likelihood of occurrence – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – introductory statement was unnecessarily alarmist – likely to have caused undue distress for Christchurch residents – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – resident dog trainer worked to retrain the dogs to be better behaved – dog training methods allegedly outdated and harmful – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues) – programmes did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance but focused on individual cases – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programmes did not contain any material inaccuracies – commentary would have been interpreted by viewers as such – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes appropriately classified PGR – episodes contained clear disclaimer – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – display of dog training methods was not “violence” as envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – contained racial comments, coarse language and sexual connotations – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content amounted to legitimate humour/satire referencing current affairs issues – consistent with expectations of New Zealand comedy programme broadcast at 9. 30pm – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and screened at 9. 30pm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 7 Days, a comedy programme in which two teams of comedians reviewed the week’s news stories, was broadcast at 9. 30pm on TV3 on Friday 1 April 2011....

Complaint3 News – comment by sports presenter about player "milking" injury – incident during rugby matchFindings(1) Standard G14 – interpretation acceptable – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During a sports item on 3 News about a head-high tackle which had occurred during a rugby match, the sports presenter commented that the tackled player’s team-mates were "quick to ensure he milked it for all it was worth". The item was broadcast on TV3 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm on 12 March 2000. Mathew Zacharias complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached numerous broadcasting standards....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on a disagreement between two individuals about their input into a Rugby World Cup statue – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a balanced and straightforward news report – neither party presented as more credible or worthy than the other – included comment from both parties – no evidence to suggest interview footage unfairly edited – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a straightforward news report – broadcaster was not required to explain the complainant’s position in more detail – viewers would not have been misled – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – complainant’s concerns relate to issues of copyright – Authority cannot assume the role of a court – standard not applicable…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported new details relating to a New Zealand man who raped and murdered a hitchhiker from the Czech Republic – interviewee and reporter used the term “nutters” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – “nutters” used to refer to person who is dangerous and deranged, and was not intended to comment on people with mental illness – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – viewers would have understood intended meaning of “nutters” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – host conducted interview with Dick Pound, founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency – host made three references to Jamaica – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Checkpoint contained an interview with Dick Pound, the founder of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that 65 police officers failed their Physical Competency Test because they were unfit – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – reported figure of 65 unfit officers came from police and was not intended to reflect the proportion of officers who failed their PCT – lack of information pertaining to reasons for failure was due to reluctance of police to reveal information – item would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of shot of person eating pizza was legitimate to suggest that diet may be a reason why officers were unfit, and was not unfair – lack of detail due to police reluctance to reveal information – police provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and response included in the story…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-016:Cooper and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-016 PDF454. 76 KB...