Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 30/95 Dated the 11th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R J ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 38/94 Dated the 9th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BRENDAN ROBERTS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary Footage of a man confessing, in a police interview room, to having murdered his daughter was included in a 60 Minutes item broadcast on TV One on 3 October 1999, beginning at 7. 30pm. The man subsequently killed himself. The Hope family, who are related to the man and his daughter, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority that the broadcast was an invasion of their privacy and had caused "an immense amount of distress and heartache" for the family. Their major concern, they wrote, was how the broadcaster had managed to obtain the tape of the confession when that was the property of the police....

ComplaintStrassman – ventriloquist – offensive language – fucking FindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – context relevant – freedom of expression – limitations must be justifiable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ventriloquist in Strassman, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 4 July 2000 used the phrase "I wish you had a fucking brain" when he spoke to one of his puppet characters. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast of "gratuitous offensive language" contravened the Broadcasting Act's requirement for broadcasters to maintain standards consistent with good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that Strassman was an adult comedy programme broadcast at 9. 30pm which carried an AO certificate and was preceded by a warning advising that it contained strong language. In that context, it did not consider that the language breached standard G2....

Complaint under section 8(1A) and 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported that a man had drowned trying to save two children – showed footage of ambulance officers performing CPR and then apologising to the man’s family because they could not revive him – showed family grieving next to the body – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – standard does not apply to deceased persons – item included prolonged and close-up footage of grieving family members – offensive intrusion into highly vulnerable and distressing moment – privacy of family members breached – upheld by majority Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – unclassified news programme aimed at adults – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-086 Dated the 6th day of August 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryA programme in the Documentary New Zealand series entitled "Hell for Leather" was broadcast on TV One on 14 June 1999 at 8. 30pm. It examined the fortunes of a footwear company managed by a prominent Maori businesswoman, as it struggled to avoid closure. Staff and management were seen to be severely stressed by the prospect of the business collapsing. Mr Christensen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used in a sequence where the manager and her staff were engaged in heated discussions regarding the company’s future. In his view, the language was unacceptable for broadcast, and should have been edited out. TVNZ responded that it considered the sequence to be important for contextual reasons as it revealed the extent of the strain the people were under....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-170 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOUGLAS JENKIN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-045 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 73/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GROUP OPPOSED TO ADVERTISING OF LIQUOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-101 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M R BRIDER of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that various 1 News items referring to Joe Biden as the ‘president-elect’ before confirmation by the United States Electoral College breached the balance, accuracy and fairness standards. The Authority found this was a technical distinction that would not have altered viewers’ overall understanding of the items, therefore it was not a ‘material’ point of fact for the purposes of the accuracy standard. To the extent the items touched on the outcome of the United States election, which in some circumstances may amount to a controversial issue of public importance triggering the balance standard, the Authority was satisfied the standard was not breached taking into account the perspectives acknowledged within the items as well as in a wide range of other coverage both by TVNZ and media generally....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on the stories of two families (A and B) and their experiences with The Welcome Home Foundation (now called the Home Funding Group) (together, HFG). Both families claimed that they lost money through their involvement with HFG, which provided financial support and the ability to hold money ‘on trust’ towards a deposit for a home. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from the director of HFG, Luke Atkins, that the broadcast breached the accuracy, fairness and balance standards. While one aspect of the item was found to be inaccurate by the broadcaster, the Authority found that the action taken in the circumstances was sufficient....

The Authority declined to determine a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on the New Zealand economy breached the accuracy standard. The complainant considered the focus of the item should have been on GDP growth, but was instead framed around wealth inequality, and was otherwise misleading through the omission of other details. The Authority considered these were issues of personal preference and editorial discretion, which cannot be resolved through the complaints process. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined): Accuracy...

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. An item on 1 News reporting on a mass shooting in Buffalo, US, showed an edited clip from the attacker’s livestream video. The clip, approximately 16 seconds long and without audio, showed the masked attacker driving into the supermarket carpark, stopping his vehicle, getting out of the car and raising a gun. The complaint alleged the broadcast of the clip breached the good taste and decency, violence, and law and order broadcasting standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The sports presenter during a ONE News bulletin described the performance of the Blues rugby team as ‘schizophrenic’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the use of the term was unacceptable and contributed to the stigmatisation of people with mental illness. The Authority recognised that the use of the term ‘schizophrenic’ to describe a sports team may be seen as insensitive and inappropriate. However, in the context of this item the Authority found the comment did not reach the high threshold for encouraging discrimination against, or denigration of, those with mental illness. The term was used in a colloquial manner, and did not contain any malice towards people with mental illness. Not Upheld: Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A ONE News item discussed an upcoming game between the Crusaders and Blues rugby teams....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-050:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1991-050 PDF632. 24 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on Maritime New Zealand’s lifejacket awareness campaign and featured footage of a female boatie, QA, at the Takapuna Beach boat ramp. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that showing her in the item breached her privacy, and that her comment to the reporter was taken out of context which was inaccurate and unfair. Not Upheld: Privacy, Accuracy, FairnessIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported on Maritime New Zealand’s lifejacket awareness campaign, in light of six drownings in the first week of summer. Introducing the item, the presenter stated, ‘[Our reporter] found Auckland boaties were complacent about the dangers’. In a pre-recorded item, the reporter said, ‘We’ve been at Takapuna boat ramp for just 15 minutes, and out of three boats, six of eight people on board weren’t wearing lifejackets’....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News focusing on social-media-based misinformation, which included brief footage of an unnamed individual displaying what appeared to be convulsions in a wheelchair, and other social media material featuring influencer Chantelle Baker. The complainant argued the item reflected poorly on these individuals as it implied both were ‘spreaders of misinformation’ and, in the unnamed person’s case, ‘strongly inferred’ their injuries were not vaccine-related. The Authority did not consider the item resulted in either individual being treated unfairly, in the context of the item. The remaining standards either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Fairness, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy...