Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-042:Talbot and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-042 PDF695. 01 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-002 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-137 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JAMES HIPPOLITE of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Some dissatisfaction expressed by three purchasers of cars from Saevue Motors in New Plymouth was considered in an item broadcast on Holmes, between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 11 December 1997. The possibility of odometer tampering was raised. Mr Rawlings complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and unfair. He noted that there had been no effort to gauge the extent of the problem among the company's total customer base, and he claimed that the company was portrayed as a "monster". On the basis that the information contained in the item justified the investigation, TVNZ reported that it had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the company to participate in the programme. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary An item on 60 Minutes focussed on the Philadelphia Police Force, its Commissioner and its facilities and practices. The introduction to the item summarised some perceived problems of the New Zealand Police Force. The item was broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1998 commencing at 7. 30 pm. Deputy Commissioner Barry Matthews on behalf of the New Zealand Police complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate. He also complained that the item was unbalanced in failing to allow New Zealand Police the opportunity to present their crime strategies, and explain why the American practices were inapplicable. TVNZ responded that the item was not about the New Zealand Police, and so input from them was unnecessary....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-165 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER LORD of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary Good Morning’s nutritionist interviewed a representative from the International Soy Advisory Board and demonstrated the use of soy products in cooking in a broadcast by TVNZ on TVOne on 3 May 1999 beginning at 10. 00am. Mr James of Whangarei complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the programme was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate as it did not warn viewers of the known health risks of using soy products, nor did it reveal that the guest was either a consultant to or an employee of a company which markets the products. TVNZ responded that the programme did not purport to investigate the merits of soy products, but was essentially a cooking demonstration carried out while the guest discussed the principal ingredient. It maintained that as research on the benefits of soy products was equivocal, it was not in a position to judge whether the broadcast was accurate....

ComplaintHolmes (2 Items) – (1) unfair – unbalanced; (2) denigrated women firefighters Findings(1) G4 – guests treated fairly – no uphold G6 – balance provided by presenter – no uphold (2) G13 – intended to be light-hearted – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The question of whether taxpayers’ money should be spent on sport was discussed in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The discussion arose in the context of the release of a report from the Hillary Commission calling for more government funding for sport. The guests were a representative from the Hillary Commission and the Minister of Sport. A second item, broadcast on Holmes on 18 April, featured archival footage of an all-woman volunteer fire service in Northland....

Complaint Private Investigators – complainants’ boat repossessed from their property – no attempt to pixellate them – humiliating – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy principle (i) – facts disclosed objectionable – no public interest – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement; compensation of $750 to each of the complainants This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The repossession of a boat on which money was owing for the outboard motor was shown in a segment on Private Investigators broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 November 2002. Private Investigators is a reality series which shows the range of activities undertaken by private investigators. [2] Mr and Mrs B Radford, the owners of the boat, complained through their solicitors to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached their privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fanny Hill promo – broadcast during One News and Mucking In – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Mucking In – broadcaster did not adequately consider interests of child viewers by broadcasting promo during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News – majority considers broadcasting PGR promo during unclassified news did not breach standard – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Order Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer complained that the host of Breakfast had been "complicit in facilitating and allowing disparaging and racist remarks" to be made about Māori during an interview with child advocate Christine Rankin about the high rate of child abuse in New Zealand. The complainant said the host's "grossly offensive" questions had created the impression that only Māori abuse and kill their children, breaching standards of good taste and decency, balance and accuracy. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Ms Rankin’s comments were not intended to disparage Māori but to call "for action on child abuse among Māori who are significantly over-represented in child abuse statistics". She had clearly stated that it was not just Māori who were abusing their children. The broadcaster said the host's questions had forced Ms Rankin to balance her comments....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the release of the Government’s Budget that day – discussed impact of the budget on a range of New Zealanders including three “high earners” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – brief references to the incomes of three high earners did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements about the impact of the budget on three high earners were not material points of fact – viewers would have understood that the point being made was that they would have more money each week than lower earners – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – references to incomes of high earners did not result in them being treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made comments about "virtually blind" producer – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's comments were light-hearted and intended to be humorous – directed at one individual rather than blind people in general – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 17 April 2009, the hosts apologised for a noise that had occurred in the background while the news was being read. One host explained that the noise was caused by the executive producer "who's virtually blind". The host elaborated, mimicking the producer trying to read viewers' faxes, and also making a lot of noise taking a plate to the hosts as he could not see the table....

ComplaintOne News – inaccurate to state that Maori have a direct genealogical link with flora and faunaFindingsStandard G1 – clearly identified as a belief – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The Maori perspective on the genetic engineering debate featured in an item broadcast on One News on 18 September 2000. It was explained that Maori opposition to genetic engineering was based on traditional beliefs, including that Maori were descended from flora and fauna. Mr R D Hutchins complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was "astoundingly untrue" to suggest that human beings were descended from plants and the various insect, reptile, bird and rat species of New Zealand. TVNZ emphasised that the statement had a cultural context and, within that cultural dimension, the statement to which Mr Hutchins took exception had not breached standard G1....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 11/94 Dated the 10th day of March 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID THORNTON of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an episode of Yo-Kai Watch was in breach of the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. It found that, while the episode contained negative stereotypes that may not be appropriate for children, and which some parents or caregivers may not approve of, the adult themes and sexual innuendos within the episode were not likely to be understood by child viewers, and the potential harm did not reach the level justifying regulatory intervention. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

An item on Breakfast discussed Novak Djokovic, his recovery from COVID-19, his comments regarding efforts to contain the virus, and the others infected at a tennis tournament he organised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the presenter’s description of Mr Djokovic as ‘a dick’ breached the good taste and decency standard. The Authority found the use of the word would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress or undermined widely shared community values. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

The Authority has not upheld a good taste and decency complaint that the treatment of a clip showing a ‘devastating’ explosion in Lebanon was inappropriate in a segment rounding up ‘all the crazy, messed-up oddities’ of the week. The context and the importance of freedom of expression meant there was no harm justifying regulatory intervention in the circumstances. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency; Discrimination and Denigration...

Warning: This decision contains language that some readers may find offensive The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Paramedics, which twice played footage of a young man suffering an allergic reaction exclaiming ‘Fuck, I can’t breathe’, with the audio censored so the word was partially silenced, and the subtitles uncensored. The episode aired during an M classification time band, at 7. 30pm, and was preceded by a warning which stated ‘This programme is rated M. It contains coarse language. ’ The ‘ML’ rating was also broadcast after each advertisement break, with the ‘L’ advisory symbol indicating ‘language may offend’. In the context, the language used would not have caused widespread undue offence or distress, and was not beyond what viewers would have reasonably expected from the programme. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...