Search Rapua

ComplaintOne News, Breakfast – archival footage not identified as such – Prime Minister not in Parliament – upheld by broadcaster FindingsAction taken insufficient – public misled – private apology insufficient OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A news report on a debate in Parliament about the Dover Samuels affair was accompanied by footage showing the Prime Minister shaking her head as if denying the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition. The item was broadcast on One News on 13 August and Breakfast and Midday on 14 August 2000. Hon Richard Prebble MP complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the Prime Minister was not in Parliament at the time when the allegations were made, the footage was a fabrication. In fact, he said, no government MP had denied the allegations....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with central figure in reality television show There’s Something About Miriam – discussed her transsexual status and contact with contestants on show – allegedly breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – nothing indecent or distasteful to the extent of breaching standard – interview conducted appropriately given subject matter – not upheld Principle 7 (programme classification) – programme news or current affairs – not classified – was sufficiently mindful of the possibility of child viewers – no warning required as contents adequately signposted – not upheld Principle 9 (children’s interests) – news and current affairs programme not directed at children – interview conducted appropriately – sufficiently mindful of children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Cellularpromo – promo for AO-classified movie broadcast during PGR-rated animated movie – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children's interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – promo did not contain any AO material - promo correctly rated PGR and screened in appropriate host programme – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children's interests in screening the promo during Ratatouille – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the movie Cellular was screened on TV2 on Saturday 14 August 2010, near the end of Ratatouille, an animated movie which was rated PGR and screened at 7. 30pm. Cellular was classified Adults Only and was broadcast at 9. 45pm after Ratatouille....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During The Edge Afternoons with Guy, Sharyn and Clint the hosts ran a segment called ‘Shaz Dog’s Love Shack’, where listeners could text and call in to ask for advice on love and relationships. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that ‘a discussion of sexual positions’ breached standards. The segment was consistent with the style of content and humour regularly broadcast on The Edge, and was unlikely to surprise or offend the target audience of 15- to 39-year-olds. Most of the content was in the nature of sexual innuendo and would have gone over the heads of younger listeners....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-181 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GEOFF HOLDING of Gore Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....