Search Rapua

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging sports commentary of the ICC World Test Championship final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The comments ‘it's a story that's akin to David versus Goliath…and living proof that sometimes, just sometimes, nice guys do finish first’ did not refer to a particular section of the community as contemplated by the standard. In any event, it was typical of sports commentary and did not have a prejudicial meaning. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Prime News item reported on the Conservative Party Annual General Meeting, which was the subject of a police call-out because a former Board member attempted to attend the meeting and was issued a trespass notice. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item lacked balance, was inaccurate and was unfair to the Conservative Party and its former leader Colin Craig. The item was a straightforward news report that was not unfair to the Conservative Party or Colin Craig, who as a public figure should expect to be subject to some criticism and scrutiny. The item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance that required the presentation of other views and was not inaccurate....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint that statements made during Uncharted with Sam Neill were inaccurate. A complaint was made that host Sam Neill and an interviewee during the programme implied that missionaries primarily came to New Zealand for the purpose of acquiring land, which was misleading and misrepresented their good work. The Authority considered that the programme was clearly framed from the outset as a chance for untold or unexplored stories and perspectives to be expressed. In these circumstances, the Authority found that the statements complained about were clearly distinguishable as analysis, comment or opinion and were therefore not subject to the requirements of the accuracy standard. The Authority’s intervention in upholding the complaint would therefore represent an unreasonable and unjustified limit on the right to freedom of expression....

The Authority has upheld one aspect of a privacy complaint regarding an episode of A Question of Justice which contained sensitive and traumatic photos of the complainant. The programme contained a re-enactment of an assault on the complainant in 2008, and showed photos of the complainant in hospital with extensive injuries and in a state of undress. The Authority found that while the photos had previously been broadcast in 2009, the sensitive surrounding circumstances and traumatic nature of the photos, combined with the passage of time since they had last been made public, meant the photos had become private again (especially since the complainant had no prior knowledge of this broadcast)....