Search Rapua

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a story on Prime News, reporting on incorrect deductions that were made from a solo mother’s benefit, was inaccurate and resulted in Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ) being treated unfairly. The featured mother was repaid $7,000 from WINZ after discovering that deductions had been made from her benefit in error, as she qualified for an exemption from a policy requiring her to identify the father of her child. The Authority considered that the item was a fair and accurate report on the issue. WINZ was the agency responsible for administering the woman’s benefit and for making the deductions under legislation. It was therefore reasonable for the broadcaster to refer to WINZ and to rely on comment from the Minister for Social Development in response....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Prime News – pre-recorded BBC item reported on controversial comments by television presenter Jeremy Clarkson that striking workers should be shot – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – focus of the item was the comment made by Mr Clarkson which caused controversy – therefore not misleading to omit footage of other comments – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a brief snapshot of the response to Mr Clarkson’s comments – did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue that was of public importance in New Zealand – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – higher threshold for finding unfairness to public figure – Mr Clarkson was not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers were not disadvantaged or deceived by the clip of Mr Clarkson’s comments – not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for A Nightmare on Elm Street – broadcast on SKY Sport channels – contained brief images from the film of Freddy Krueger – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standardFindingsStandard P3 (children) – images were brief and not disturbing in themselves – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction[1] A promo for upcoming movies on SKY was broadcast on 3, 10 and 15 July at various times on SKY Sport channels. One of the movies being promoted was A Nightmare on Elm Street, and two brief images were shown of the serial killer in the film, Freddy Krueger. [2] Nicola Te Rangiita made a formal complaint to SKY Network Television Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that the promo breached Standard P3 (children)....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Bullies, a three-part documentary series, discussed the issue of bullying in schools. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the documentary was unbalanced and misleading because it did not discuss the success of certain nationwide bullying prevention programmes. The documentary did discuss various anti-bullying programmes and was not otherwise misleading. Which anti-bullying initiatives to feature, and in what detail, was a matter of editorial discretion for the broadcaster. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, AccuracyIntroduction[1] An episode of Bullies, a three-part documentary series, discussed the issue of bullying in schools. [2] David White complained that the documentary was unbalanced and misleading because it did not discuss the success of nationwide bullying prevention programmes. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the controversial issues and accuracy standards as set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

ComplaintBulworth – film – two screenings – obscene language – fuck – cock sucker FindingsStandard S2 – context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The film Bulworth, a political satire, was broadcast on Sky Movie Max at 6. 10pm on 13 June 2001 and at 4. 40pm on 18 June 2001. It contained a scene during which a young boy swore at a police officer and called him a "fucking pig cock sucker". [2] Phillip Smits complained to Sky Network Television Limited, the broadcaster, that the language was "obscene". [3] Sky did not uphold the complaints. It considered that the language used, when considered in context, did not breach currently accepted norms of decency and taste in language. [4] Dissatisfied with Sky’s response, Mr Smits referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Parliamentary Question Time – showed Deputy Prime Minister at times when he was not answering or asking questions – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard S6 (balance) – programme did not approach the proceedings from any particular perspective – balance not required – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] Coverage of Parliamentary Question Time was broadcast on Sky News at 2pm on 7 April 2005. Complaint[2] Michael Gibson complained that the broadcast was unbalanced because it focused on the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, at times when he was not asking or answering questions. The coverage had shown Dr Cullen “grinning and derisively showing a dismissive attitude towards the Opposition”, he said. [3] Mr Gibson argued that the broadcaster had broken the same rules which had caused TV3 to be banned from filming in Parliament recently....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 11/95 Dated the 6th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority upheld complaints that the broadcast of potentially offensive language in two episodes of Inside the Red Arrows breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The complainant made separate complaints about each episode. The broadcaster did not respond within the required 20 working day statutory timeframe, although once the complaint was referred to the Authority, it responded to Mr Francis advising that his complaint about the first episode was upheld. It later advised the Authority that the second complaint was also upheld. Upon considering the substance of the complaints, the Authority recognised the value of the documentary series, however, it found that as the episodes were broadcast at 7. 30pm, which is a time that children may be watching, and they were not preceded by any warning for language, the broadcasts breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shameless – programme contained sex scenes, swearing and violence – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards – broadcaster upheld complaint under content classification, warning and filtering standard FindingsAction Taken: Standard P1 (content classification, warning and filtering) – action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard P2 (good taste and decency) – incorrect classification and inadequate warning label meant that viewers were not sufficiently informed of the programme’s likely content – viewers were therefore denied the opportunity to make a different viewing choice and were more likely to be offended – upheld Standard P3 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently protected child viewers from unsuitable content by classifying the programme 16 – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Prime News – news item repeated footage of a high tackle 12 times – allegedly in breach of violence standard Findings Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain gratuitous violence – footage was repeated to allow viewers to decide for themselves if the player had intended to make the high tackle – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on Prime News at 5. 50 pm on 16 August 2007, reported that a rugby league player had been found guilty of a reckless tackle by the Australian National Rugby League judiciary and had been suspended for seven games. During the course of the item, footage of the high tackle was shown 12 times....

Complaint"A Tale of Tofu" – National Geographic documentary – unbalanced coverage of controversial topic – inaccurate FindingsSection 4(1)(d) – item dealt with tofu’s cheapness, versatility and availability, not health issues – not controversial topic – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary "A Tale of Tofu" was broadcast by Sky Network Television Ltd on the National Geographic channel on 8 October 2000 at midday. It provided a cultural and historical overview of the role of tofu in Chinese life. Mr R F James complained to Sky Network Television that the broadcast was unbalanced because it presented tofu in a positive light, and failed to acknowledge that there was a significant body of evidence which showed that it was not healthy, and that it posed irreversible dangers to consumers....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 62/94 Dated the 15th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION SERVICES LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority found it had no jurisdiction to determine a complaint about the movie Overlord as the complaint to the broadcaster did not amount to an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority found that the broadcaster did not have to accept this as a valid formal complaint, on the grounds the complaint was about the storyline and genre, rather than an allegation that the programme was in breach of broadcasting standards. Declined jurisdiction...

The BSA has jurisdiction to consider complaints about a programme that has been simultaneously broadcast on television and streamed on the internet (simulcasts). The BSA does not have jurisdiction to consider complaints about YouTube content that is available on demand, as on demand content is excluded from the definition of broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act 1989. The Authority determined that the complaint should be considered under the Pay Television Code. Jurisdiction accepted...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Voice of Islam broadcast a speech by a prominent Muslim speaker, in which she discussed the teachings of Islam. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the programme amounted to 'hate speech' and incited violence. The speech clearly comprised the speaker's own interpretation of the teachings of the Qur'an, and did not contain anything which threatened broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children, Law and Order, Fairness, Accuracy Introduction[1] Voice of Islam broadcast a speech by a prominent Muslim speaker, in which she discussed the teachings of Islam. [2] Adam Lloyd complained that that programme amounted to 'hate speech' and 'incite[d] violence towards unbelievers'. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, children, law and order, fairness and accuracy standards of the Pay Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-150 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAEME CLODE of Dunedin Broadcaster SKY NETWORK TELEVISION LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has upheld a complaint that two episodes of The Box Seat breached the accuracy and balance standards of the Pay TV Code of Broadcasting Standards. The Authority found that the segments about blood spinning in harness racing covered a controversial issue of public importance but failed to include balancing views on the issue being discussed or indicate that the programmes were presented from a specific perspective. The Authority also found that, although the broadcasts did not contain any specific factual inaccuracies, the omission of alternative perspectives and information on the safety and propriety of blood spinning meant that the broadcast was misleading as a whole. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the fairness standard. The Authority considered the publication of this decision sufficient to censure the breach of standards by the broadcaster and made no orders. Upheld: Balance, Accuracy. Not upheld: Fairness. No orders...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Five on Fox News featured a panel discussion about the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. One of the panellists twice commented that a solution for the remaining Guantánamo Bay inmates would be to ‘kill them all’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging the comment incited mass murder. The comment did not amount to promotion of serious illegal activity to a New Zealand audience, and in the context of the discussion and the nature of the programme and channel it was unlikely to be taken literally by reasonable viewers. Not Upheld: Law and OrderIntroduction[1] The Five on Fox News featured a panel discussion about the closing of the prison at Guantánamo Bay. One of the panellists twice commented that a solution for the remaining Guantánamo Bay inmates would be to ‘kill them all’....

ComplaintThe Lions: Up Close and Personal – documentary series following The Lions’ 2001 rugby tour of Australia – team members filmed off field, on sideline, in dressing room – use of language including "bugger" and "fuck" – breach of good taste and decency FindingsS. 4(1)(a) – language acceptable in context – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The Lions: Up Close and Personal was a four-part documentary series which followed The Lions representative rugby team during its 10-match tour of Australia in 2001. It was broadcast on Prime Television during November and December 2001. [2] Paul Schwabe complained to Prime Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of language including "bugger" and "fuck" during the episode broadcast on 18 November 2001 at 8. 35pm was contrary to good taste and decency....