Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-038:Sims and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-038 PDF400. 49 KB...

*Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics and included an interview with Mr Hager. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the Seven Sharp host was biased and treated Mr Hager unfairly. The host’s comments were clearly his opinion, and Mr Hager was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to put forward his position. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp was introduced by the hosts, Mike Hosking and Toni Street, as follows: Hosking: So, question: are we shocked at what Nicky Hager has in his book, Dirty Politics? In a word, I think no. it is not the big exposé Hager claims it is; there is no smoking gun....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of I Am Innocent focused on the story of Y, a science teacher, who was accused and charged with indecently assaulting a female student (‘X’) in 2012. The charges against Y were withdrawn around August-September 2013. The episode featured interviews with Y and others, all of whom spoke supportively about him. Ms Johnson complained that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards, including that comments made during the programme about X and her mother resulted in their unfair treatment. The Authority upheld this aspect of Ms Johnson’s complaint, finding that the programme created a negative impression of X and her mother....

The Authority has upheld a complaint that a 1 News item reporting on then Leader of the Opposition and National Party leader Hon Simon Bridges travelling from Tauranga to Wellington during COVID-19 Level 4 lockdown breached the accuracy standard. The Authority found that the item, which was focussed on MPs breaking lockdown rules, was misleading in putting Mr Bridges in that category.  The Authority acknowledged that, during the time of the broadcast, there was confusion surrounding the scope of the rules, particularly as to what constituted an essential service. However, the broadcaster had access to information suggesting Mr Bridges was engaged in an ‘essential service’ and, given the level of harm potentially caused by portraying a senior Member of Parliament as breaking lockdown rules, had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that this particular item did not mislead the public. Upheld: Accuracy No Order...

The complainant referred a complaint concerning an item broadcast on 1 News accompanied by submissions in excess of 100 pages, indicating further submissions would be required. The Authority ordered the complainant to resubmit the complaint in a more proportionate form, constituting a single submission not exceeding 2,000 words, within 20 working days of this decision. Order to resubmit complaint in a form not exceeding 2,000 words within 20 working days...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 7/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER ZOHRAB of Wainuiomata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Shortland Street that included scenes of a man injecting another against his will, removing one of his organs, then drinking alcohol from a glass with a bloodied glove. In the context, including the programme’s nature, classification and intended audience, the Authority found the episode was unlikely to have caused widespread undue offence or distress, or undue harm to child viewers. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 147/95 Dated the 14th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M JAMES of Raglan Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-134 Dated the 11 day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND LABOUR PARTY Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-034 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK EDEN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintMusic Video – "Beautiful Day" – offensive behaviour – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard G2 – kissing shown – not offensive – no uphold Standard G12 – content acceptable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A music video was broadcast on TV One at about 8. 00am on Sunday 8 October 2000 between a religious programme and a children’s programme. The song "Beautiful Day" was sung by U2. Barry Marshall complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the video contained "licentious behaviour" which he considered offensive. In his view, it was unsuitable for broadcast at any time, but particularly so when placed between two "quality programmes". TVNZ responded that the song’s lyrics were not unsuitable for child viewers and that the visuals of a couple kissing did not exceed community norms of decency and good taste....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item and follow-up item investigated a war crime perpetrated by New Zealand’s mounted troopers in Surafend in 1918 – reported how many people had been killed and questioned why the Government would not apologise to the victims’ families – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no material points of fact raised by the complainant – general thrust of the item was accurate – upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme of historical interest but did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – New Zealand World War I troops not a section of the…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about the disappearance of a six year old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – acting on an anonymous tip, reporter went to a remote farm and filmed an interview with the property owner – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – broadcasting footage of complainant filmed on private property without his knowledge amounted to a breach of privacy principle 3 – no public interest in broadcasting the footage – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not leave a negative impression of complainant – not unfair – not upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – payment to the complainant for breach of privacy $1,000 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant $574....

Chair Joanne Morris declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item reported on the use of anti-depressants – excerpts from a radio talkback show were used in the item – two excerpts involved the complainant discussing her use of anti-depressant drugs – allegedly in breach of privacy The Authority’s DecisionStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable in the item – item did not disclose any private facts – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on the 20/20 programme, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 30 August 2007, examined the use of the anti-depressant drug Aropax and the difficulty some people had experienced when trying to stop using it. The item included excerpts from a radio talkback discussion concerning the use of anti-depressants....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the use of 1080 poison on the South Island’s West Coast and the tensions it was causing in the community – included video footage of a confrontation between a contractor involved in the 1080 programme and anti-1080 protestors – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – video footage was taken in a public place – complainant not in a state of vulnerability – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Tuesday 5 August 2008, reported on protestors clashing with contractors over the use of 1080 poison on the West Coast of New Zealand’s South Island....

Summary An item on Breakfast broadcast on TV One at about 7. 40 am on 9 July 1998 reviewed the contents of leading women’s magazines published during that week. A studio guest referred to Paula Yates, who was featured in a magazine, and commented that Yates was known largely "for shagging the famous". Mr Yoxall complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the remark was vulgar, and an unacceptable breach of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that the context of the remark was that the live studio broadcast was as tabloid as the magazines it reviewed. The comment was the guest’s genuinely-held opinion, and reflected a widely-held view of Yates. It was delivered in a light-hearted, laconic manner and, although unfortunate in view of Yates’ apparent attempted suicide, did not breach the standard, TVNZ wrote....

SummaryA repeat broadcast of the programme Who Dares Wins was broadcast on TV2 on 10 December 1998 at 7. 30pm. A Melbourne man responded to a dare to appear on stage with the male revue troupe Manpower. Ms Dawn Shelford of Rotorua complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, on behalf of the group Preserving Communication Standards. In her view the broadcast was offensive, particularly during family viewing time. In its response, TVNZ noted that the programme complained about had been the subject of an earlier complaint to the Authority which had not been upheld. It advised that the arguments it advanced then remained valid. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Ms Shelford referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintLate Edition – Breakfast – alleged rat infestation in Helensville – no evidence of rats – community views not sought – item unfair and unbalanced FindingsStandard G14 – item failed to uphold standards of accuracy, impartiality and objectivity – uphold OrderCosts of $500 to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on TV One on Late Edition on 6 June 2001, and on Breakfast on 7 June 2001, dealt with an alleged infestation of rats in and around Helensville. Hans Van Duyn complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unfair and lacked balance. He said the only person interviewed was a former Helensville Mayor, Mr Eric Glavish, who had his own "reasons or agenda to make unsubstantiated allegations"....