Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Rumble – breakfast show hosts on The Rock discussed a story featured on Close Up the previous night about two girls who alleged that, twelve-years prior, an ex-All Black had engaged in sexual activity with one of them while she had been unconscious – the hosts noted that the girl had accepted a payment from the man to settle the matter – one host made the comment, “See, all I see is that that woman and her mate have cashed in at both ends” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – some elements of unfairness – however, hosts entitled to voice their opinions in the manner in which they did – freedom of expression – not upheldStandard 4…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host discussed politicians and the use of binding referenda – host compared people who did not agree with the use of binding referenda to a woman meeting a man for the first time and saying "I'm yours, do anything you want with me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's remark did not invoke connotations of rape – not upheld Standards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – standards not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-010–024: Sharp and 6 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-010–024 PDF3. 96 MB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News at Midday, One News at 4. 30pm, One News at 6pm, One News Tonight – items reported that a former senior manager at Rimutaka Prison had pleaded guilty to growing cannabis for supply to inmates – allegedly in breach of accuracy and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – news items employed shorthand to describe Mr Reid’s case – based on summary of facts agreed to by the parties statements were not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – news programmes are unclassified – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard only applies to sections of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989News item about double homicide – local resident reported as saying he knew who did it and intended to pay murderer a visit – announcer commented “wouldn’t that make a cool movie, like Kill Bill” – allegedly irresponsibleFindingsPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – thoughtless comment by announcer minimised by news reader’s critical response – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item referred to a double homicide in Feilding and mentioned the response from a local resident. The resident was reported as saying he knew who was responsible, owned two rifles, and intended to “pay some people a visit”. The item added that he had been warned by the police not to take vigilante action. The item was broadcast on 95bfm at 9. 00am on 7 June 2005....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Checkpoint – report stated that Queenstown may face an energy crisis in the future – the words electricity, energy and power were used interchangeably – allegedly in breach of balance, fairness, accuracy and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 6 (accuracy) – item was not deceptive – listeners would not have been misled – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – standard did not apply because the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard did not apply – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint3 News – possible cure for cancer – deceptive – misleadingFindingsStandard G7 – not applicable Standard G11 – not applicable Standard G15 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A dietary supplement made from pig pancreatic enzymes was said to provide a possible cure for cancer, according to an item on 3 News broadcast on 11 May 2000 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Murray Tonks complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item lacked scientific credibility and that it was apparent that there was no independently verified research findings which backed the claims made. In his view, the item used a deceptive programme practice and was misleading, as it could have raised false hopes for cancer sufferers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Bones promo – contained three brief shots of a girl with what appeared to be blood or dirt on her face – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – promo correctly rated PGR – images were fleeting and inexplicit – acceptable for child viewers under adult supervision – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – images were fleeting and inexplicit – broadcast during an unclassified news programme – would not have alarmed or distressed children – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for Bones was broadcast on TV3 at approximately 6....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item included footage of Gareth Morgan speaking at a Mana Party event. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that broadcasting his use of the word ‘prick’ breached standards. The comment was intended as self-deprecating humour, rather than being offensive or abusive, and it was relatively fleeting in the context of the item, which focused on a potential alliance between the Internet Party and the Mana Party. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] During One News, an item about the relationship between the Mana and Internet Parties included footage of Gareth Morgan speaking at a Mana Party event. He was shown addressing the guests, saying: I’ll leave it up to you [the guests] to decide whether I’m a prick or not… [laughter from audience]… hopefully you’ll wait until after the speech....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive – host and producer referred to rugby players as “Jesus” and “God” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – use of “Jesus” and “God” to compliment rugby players would not have offended or distressed most listeners in context – comments did not carry any invective and did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Christians as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During D’Arcy Waldegrave Drive on Radio Sport, the host and producer discussed the selection of the All Blacks training squad, including a rookie, Steven Luatua, who played for the Auckland Blues....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-126:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-126 PDF420. 11 KB...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Overgrown – cannabis law reform-themed radio show advocated cannabis use – host referred to a phone call from a general practitioner and made comments about the views he allegedly expressed – allegedly in breach of standards relating to law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainant was not named and unlikely to be identified from the limited information broadcast – host’s comments did not reach the necessary threshold to be considered unfair to the complainant – complainant not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – while the programme encouraged and promoted cannabis use this was in the spirit of protest and to promote law reform – value of speech important – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – Overgrown was not a “factual programme” to which the standard applied – show was opinion-based and…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-032:Holt and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-032 PDF770. 19 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on The Paul Henry Show featured the two presenters discussing recent law changes in Russia that mean it is now illegal to misrepresent Russia’s involvement in World War II, and that people would be fined for swearing on television, in theatre or in films. Mr Henry gave examples of Russian swearwords. There was also a discussion about ‘butt plugs’ made in the likeness of Vladimir Putin and of Paul Henry. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the language, the references to Russia’s involvement in the war, and the discussion about ‘butt plugs’ were offensive. The segment was on late at night and targeted at adults, it was intended to be light-hearted and was consistent with expectations of the show and of Paul Henry....

Complaint Titus – "whore" – "ho" – offensive language – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of the programme’s effect on children FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – PGR rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Titus was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 00pm on 22 October 2001. Titus is an American situation comedy series. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word "whore" in the programme breached standards relating to good taste and decency. He also considered that the broadcast had been incorrectly classified and that TV3 had not been mindful of the programme’s effect on children. [3] TV3 declined to uphold the complaint....