Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-167 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (NEW ZEALAND) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-079 Dated the 23rd day of July 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JENNY HALE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Four promos broadcast prior to 8. 30pm – three for programme Bad Girls – one for quiz show How Normal Are You? – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – Bad Girls – material suitable to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You? – material suitable to be rated G – not upheld by majority Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Bad Girls – material appropriate to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You?...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A – host interviewed Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions and John Barnett from South Pacific Pictures about controversy surrounding production of the film The Hobbit in New Zealand – host’s approach towards Ms Kelly allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – host’s approach aggressive but did not extend to personal attack against Ms Kelly – Ms Kelly should have expected to be interviewed robustly about The Hobbit dispute – not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – Ms Kelly given adequate opportunity to present the union’s viewpoint – significant perspectives on the topic presented within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police – twice showed the complainant being arrested and taken to the police station to “detox” after solvent abuse – complainant’s first name was disclosed and his house was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable due to use of his first name, full length shots of his body and clothing, footage of his property and street, recordings of his voice – complainant’s solvent abuse was a private fact – disclosure of complainant’s solvent abuse in the late 1990s would be highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – public interest did not outweigh the complainant’s right to privacy – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – breach of complainant’s privacy was also unfair – unfair to re-broadcast footage more than 10 years after filming – upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(d) – costs to the complainant for breach of…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up @ 7 – item discussing the noise levels at a speedway in Auckland – showed the names of those who had presented a petition to the Environment Court – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairnessFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to disorderly acts – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – signatures on a petition not private facts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – controversial issue – perspectives of both sides solicited in a balanced manner – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – subsumedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person flying New Zealand flag at home in dispute with neighbours – complainants who are neighbours named and their home shown – complainants have long history of community service – private facts disclosed – alleged breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (Privacy) Privacy Principles (i), (iii), (iv), and (v) – dispute about flag had been heard in the District Court – accordingly not private – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A dispute between Mr Brian McGinty of Orewa and his neighbours, including Sir Ross and Lady Jansen, was dealt with in an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 18 March 2004 beginning at 7. 00pm. The dispute was about Mr McGinty’s neighbours objecting to his desire to fly a New Zealand flag on his property....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the accuracy standard about a 1News report on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged the broadcast’s framing of the Treaty principles as partnership, participation, and protection (the Three Ps) was ‘incomplete and confused’, and describing the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’ erroneously suggested the Bill was rewriting the Treaty principles. The broadcast stated, ‘there are no principles that have been expressly defined or set out in law’ and recited the Three Ps as the ‘current main three principles’. In the context of the segment, the reporter’s comments were unlikely to mislead viewers, and any potential harm caused was not at a level justifying intervention. Additionally, it was not misleading, in the context, to refer to the Bill’s three principles as ‘new’. Not Upheld: Accuracy...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item reporting on Te Pāti Māori’s ‘reset’, the co-leaders’ reaction to questioning at a media conference, and Te Pāti Māori’s newest MP Oriini Kaipara’s maiden speech in Parliament. The complaints alleged the segment was unbalanced and biased as the broadcast did not report on the temporary suspension of Parliament following haka and waiata after Kaipara’s maiden speech. The Authority found the segment was a straight news report and not a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance, meaning the balance standard did not apply....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint concerning an interview on Breakfast. In a discussion concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s State of the Nation speech, the host stated to ACT Party Deputy Leader Brooke van Velden ‘You mentioned that, division was from the previous Government. I mean, come on, you look at the Treaty of Waitangi. You must be able to read the room in terms of how the nation is feeling towards that Bill by your party. ’ The complainant considered the host’s implication that this division was caused by ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill was inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair. The Authority found that the question was comment, analysis or opinion to which the accuracy standard did not apply. The other standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment on the cancellation of drag storytime events due to ‘nasty backlash online’ from Destiny Church and Family First. The complainant considered the segment discriminated against and denigrated Christians, men, and others with conservative values, was unbalanced, and was unfair towards Destiny Church, Family First, and those with ‘traditional family values’. The Authority found the standards did not apply to the broad group of people holding the particular values specified. It found the segment did not encourage the discrimination or denigration of Christians, and the phrase ‘don’t be a dick’ was not ‘anti-male’, as claimed by the complainant. It found the broadcast adequately presented significant perspectives in compliance with the balance standard....

ComplaintAmerica’s Funniest Home Videos – home video of girl with frogs in underwear – bad taste – breach of standards relating to protection of children FindingsStandard G2 – no offensive behaviour – no uphold Standard G12 – not unsuitable for children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A home video broadcast during the programme America’s Funniest Home Videos featured a young girl shown removing a number of frogs from her nappy. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 5. 00pm on 5 May 2001. Tim Dolan complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Ltd, that the broadcast breached standards relating to good taste and the protection of children. Mr Dolan considered it unlikely that the girl had put the frogs into her own nappy and that she had been coerced into appearing in the video....

SummaryFootage showing a man who had his genitals stapled to a cross – which was then set alight – was included on Havoc 2000 Deluxe broadcast on TV2 at 10. 00pm on 9 November 1999. The programme also included a sequence where one of the presenters asked a woman on the street if she would consider "a blow-job for four [dollars]". The programme broadcast on 16 November included reaction to the incident. Simon Boyce and Carey Clow both complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence showing the man nailing his genitals to the cross was indecent and breached broadcasting standards. Mr Boyce also complained about the approach made to the woman on the street, and Mr Clow complained about the programme broadcast the following week which referred to the stapling incident and the reaction to it....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-001:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-001 PDF280. 04 KB...

SummaryAn episode of The Lakes broadcast on TV One on 26 May 1999 beginning at 9. 05pm contained a scene depicting a violent gang rape. Ms Wightman of Wellington, Mr Turley of Nelson and Ms Buchanan of Christchurch each complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the episode. Ms Wightman contended that it was unacceptable to show sexual violence on public television, particularly when no warning was given prior to the programme that it would contain rape scenes. Mr Turley’s complaint focused not just on the rape scene, which he deemed unacceptable, but also on what he called the gratuitously offensive language used, and the programme’s focus on depraved and offensive sexual activity. Ms Buchanan objected to the fact that in the course of a single programme the content included murder, a gang rape and the prospect of fornication between a parishioner and a priest....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-060 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA (Group Against Liquor Advertising) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-058 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT D of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

The Authority has declined to determine two complaints under multiple standards relating to segments of a 1News broadcast that concerned a pro-Palestinian protest in Auckland and developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, and aid funding for Ukraine. The Authority found the complainant had not raised arguments relevant to the standards raised, had raised matters of personal preference, the relevant issues had been satisfactorily addressed in the broadcaster’s decisions on his complaints, and/or related to issues that have previously been dealt with and did not warrant further determination. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – in all the circumstances the complaints should not be determined): Offensive and Disturbing Content, Promotion Of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...