Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-043:Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-043 PDF444. 79 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]On Good Morning the presenter interviewed two recently eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the presenters referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, as these words did not feature in the broadcast. Declined to Determine: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A presenter on Good Morning interviewed two eliminated contestants from Masterchef New Zealand, while they cooked a dish. The programme was broadcast on TV ONE on 17 April 2014. [2] Shane Moore complained that the programme breached the discrimination and denigration standard because the presenter referred to the two contestants as ‘coo coo things’, and attacked ‘mentally disabled people’. [3] The members of the Authority have viewed a recording of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-074–076:New Zealand Shooters Rights Association Inc, Otago-Southland Firearms Coalition and Beltowski and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-074, 1992-075, 1992-076 PDF1. 9 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-104:New Zealand Police and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-104 PDF2. 21 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-113–114:Smits and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-113, 1993-114 PDF798. 21 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-014 Dated the 22nd day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CENTRE FOR PSYCHO- SOCIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT in Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A scene towards the end of the programme Water Rats broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30 pm on 23 July 1998 depicted a man seizing a policewoman and threatening her with a knife. Mr Parry complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the brandishing of knives in a threatening manner, especially where women were shown as victims, was unacceptable on television. Knives, he wrote, should never be shown used as weapons on television because that led to copycat crimes. TVNZ responded that the showing of knives could not be absolutely banned. What was important, it suggested, was how knives and other weapons were shown and in what context. Here, it wrote, the scene was essential to the drama. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Parry referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters discussed Civil Defence emergency survival kits – presenter commented on what people should have in their kits, Mormons being prepared for disasters as part of their faith, and whether people should just have a gun and bullets and use them to take other people’s kits – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were inane banter that was not intended to be taken seriously – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 7 September 2010, the presenters, Paul Henry, Pippa Wetzell and Peter Williams, discussed Civil Defence emergency kits....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – item dealt with interview of the Hon John Tamihere MP published in Investigate magazine – Mr Tamihere had later claimed that he did not know the interview was being recorded – item included extracts of interview with complainant, Ian Wishart, editor of Investigate, who spoke about recording process – item also discussed journalistic ethics as to when interviews are “on” or “off the record”, and the specific expectations of interviews with politicians – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurateFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – credibility of serving Member of Parliament and former Cabinet Minister is controversial issue of public importance – credibility issues raised and viewers left to decide – competing accounts presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on an Auckland homicide – showed victim’s wife and three teenage children being driven away in police car – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – footage of police car was taken in a public place – victim’s family likely vulnerable but disclosure of footage not highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 September 2008, it was reported that a man had been stabbed and killed in Auckland. In the following item, One News reported from the suburb in which the man lived and interviewed one of his work colleagues, a man who witnessed the incident, and a member of the Auckland Police....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – Te Karere – Eye to Eye – Marae – all items concerning emergence of the Māori Party or the by-election in Te Tai Hauauru – complainant was candidate for Te Tai Hauauru seat – when appeared on Te Karere complainant’s words were translated into te reo Māori – allegedly in breach of law and order standard as contrary to Bill of Rights Act – complainant’s candidacy received minimal coverage from other TVNZ news and current affairs – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards....

ComplaintHolmes – panel discussion on Australian Rugby League’s punishment of John Hopoate who had assaulted other players on the field – humorous approach – breach of good taste and decency – inappropriate for children FindingsStandard G2 – context – topical and newsworthy issue – humour balanced by serious debate – no uphold Standard G12 – current affairs programme – child viewers unlikely to have been watching alone – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7pm on 29 March 2001, focussed on Australian Rugby League’s decision to suspend John Hopoate for twelve weeks. Mr Hopoate had been found guilty of conduct contrary to the true spirit of rugby league for inserting his finger into the backsides of three players during a rugby league match....

Summary In a review of events surrounding the Erebus crash, it was reported that the then CEO of Air New Zealand had told a senior pilot "I’ll cut your f-ing balls off". The remark was quoted in a 60 Minutes item broadcast on 28 November 1999 at 7. 30pm, the 20th anniversary of the crash of the Air New Zealand plane in the Antarctic. Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive, unacceptable and entirely unnecessary, particularly in a programme which dealt with a subject still painful for the friends and relatives of those killed. TVNZ emphasised the context in which the remark was made and suggested the comment reflected the bitterness and unresolved questions arising from the disaster. In its view, the phrase spoke volumes about the emotions aroused by the debate....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Erin Simpson Show – lyrics of song performed by New Zealand band on the show – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – lyrics were oblique – teenagers more likely to be watching than young children – acceptable in G programme – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – complainant did not identify any inaccurate statements – not likely to have alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Erin Simpson Show, a programme aimed at teenagers and containing a mixture of interviews, band performances, and information about the latest games, technology, TV and movies, was broadcast at 4. 30pm on TV2 on Tuesday 5 May....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Advertising Standards Authority’s ruling against advertisement for Charlie’s Soda – studio discussion among four men about whether the decision was out of step with society and demonstrated a double standard between advertising and television programmes – allegedly unbalanced Findings Standard 4 (balance) – discussion was confined to one advertisement – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 31 January 2008, discussed the decision of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) that an advertisement for Charlie’s Soda was in breach of advertising standards. According to the item, the ASA ruled that the advertisement breached a standard which required advertisements not to use sexual content to promote an unrelated product....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item used the word “gay” in the context of reporting on influx of homosexual couples from Australia getting married in New Zealand as civil unions are not legally recognised in Australia – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – “gay” is a commonly accepted and widely used term for homosexuals – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Shortland Street, one of the characters, Harper, used the exclamation ‘Oh, Jesus…’ to express her shock and disgust at a flood of sewage in her new home. A promo for this episode, broadcast during the weather report on 1 News, also included Harper using this expression. The Authority received a complaint that this language was blasphemous and offensive, and in the case of the promo, inappropriate for broadcast during 1 News at 6pm when children might be watching. The Authority acknowledged that the complainant, and others in the community, might find this type of language offensive. However, the Authority has consistently found that these type of expressions are commonly used as exclamations in our society....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....