Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-168 Decision No: 1996-169 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR JOHN READ of Auckland and NEW ZEALAND PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY INC. Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2008-485-24 PDF82. 96 KBComplaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Complaint During a Close Up item about the "naming and shaming" of drunk drivers by a Wellington newspaper, a woman was approached outside court after being convicted of her second drink driving offence. Although the woman declined to be interviewed for fear of losing her job, she was shown running down the street to get away from the reporter, and her age, marital status and salary were reported. Her face was initially pixelated but she was "unmasked" and named later in the item. David and Heather Green objected to the woman's treatment. They said the item had imposed an extra penalty over and above that imposed in the courtroom, and was unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryAn item on the programme 5. 30 with Jude, broadcast on TV One on 4 November 1998 at 5. 40 pm, featured a representative from a health products company discussing women’s health with the presenter. In particular, soy products, phytoestrogens, and commercial products containing them were discussed in relation to the relief they provided to women with menopausal symptoms. Mrs James complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that statements made in the item were inaccurate and unbalanced. She did not, she wrote, see any indication that the programme was an advertisement or advertorial, and she therefore assumed that it was classified as a documentary. TVNZ responded that the segment was "transparently advertorial in nature". It was paid for by the health products company, but TVNZ retained editorial control over it, the broadcaster said....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – statement broadcast about a complaint upheld by the Authority – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – statement was an accurate representation of the Authority's decision – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – nothing unfair to Mr Greally in the statement – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd was ordered to broadcast a statement after a complaint had been upheld by the Broadcasting Standards Authority. Decision No: 2006-020 related to a complaint by Elizabeth Dunning about a One News item screened on 3 February 2006. The statement required by the Authority was broadcast on TV One during One News at approximately 6pm on 22 November 2006....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police College – reality series following new police recruits – showed man being ejected from Westpac Stadium – man was seen resisting attempts to remove him and shouting abuse at police – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfairFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) and privacy principle (ii) – insufficient time had passed for public fact to become private – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6b only applies to planned appearances – Mr Walden unnecessarily identified under guideline 6f, but overall treated fairly – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Police College was a reality series which traced the progress of cadets through the Police College. In an episode broadcast on TV2 at 10....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Criminal Minds – two versions of the promo were broadcast – both versions referred to a “prolific serial killer” and showed a person’s throat being drawn on with a blue pen – one referred to the serial killer removing the limbs of his victims while they were alive and showed a body part lying in the desert – allegedly in breach of standards of programme classification, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promos contained adult themes – both versions were deserving of a higher classification – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promos incorrectly classified and contained gruesome adult themes – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about a 10-year-old child who had taken his mother’s car for a joyride – child interviewed while sitting in the driver’s seat – showed child sitting in the driver’s seat of the car alone and rolling down the driveway at his house – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests Findings Standards 2 (law and order) and 9 (children’s interests) – item did not encourage adult target audience to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise illegal behaviour – clearly illustrated the boy’s actions were dangerous and illegal – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Illegal New Zealand – episode looked at the illegal trading of guns in New Zealand – included footage of the presenter practising target shooting – presenter shown holding a shotgun in firing position – camera briefly tracked in front of the presenter as he held a shotgun in a firing position – allegedly in breach of the law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Illegal New Zealand was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Thursday 9 July 2009....

Summary The London Connection, a documentary hosted by Gary McCormick, was re-broadcast on TV One on 31 October beginning at 11. 35pm, having been first broadcast on 16 August 1999. Simon Boyce complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast of a sequence in which inebriated young women danced topless was a deceptive programme practice because it objectified the young women without identifying them. TVNZ refused to accept the complaint on the grounds that it had already dealt with a complaint about the programme from the same complainant and, having made a proper investigation, had found no breach of broadcasting standards. Mr Boyce referred the matter to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. He argued that the sequence he complained about was not a legitimate subject for a documentary since the women were not identified....

ComplaintPrivate Investigators – item on computer software piracy – privacy – identification Findings(1) Privacy – no identification – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Private Investigators, a series about the activities of private investigators in New Zealand, was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 27 June 2000. PW, through her lawyer, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached her privacy. The programme had included a segment about pirated computer games. Footage was broadcast which showed a private investigator recovering software from a house occupied by PW. PW’s lawyer explained that she had been recently released from the police witness protection scheme, and had expressed to the programme makers her wish not to be identified due to her background....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on proposed brothel aimed at women – contained interview with owner – promo shown during One News – both item and promo allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo and item covered legitimate story – neither broadcast contained visuals of brothels or sex workers – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – focus of promo and item was Ms Corkery – neither contained a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] A promo for Close Up was broadcast during an episode of One News on TV One at 6. 25pm on Monday 16 August 2010....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with woman who was launching a brand of cosmetics made from natural ingredients – contained a number of statements about the chemicals contained in mainstream cosmetics, including that most contained parabens – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee was not presented as an expert – viewers would have understood that her comments were opinion and not statements of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Trial by Ordeal – documentary – examined three jury trials of John Barlow charged with double murder – questioned fairness in view of the length of the process – interviewed some participants and set up mock jury to hear evidence – allegedly gratuitous murder reconstructions, offensive and unnecessarily violent, and favoured defence over prosecutionFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – opposing perspectives advanced – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) and Guidelines 10b (cumulative effect) and 10f (repeated gratuitously) – reconstructions, while gruesome, were not gratuitous or repeated unnecessarily – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Trial by Ordeal was a documentary broadcast on TV One at 9. 00pm on 12 February 2004....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989State of the Nation – televised debate on race relations included expert panel and studio audience – allegedly unbalanced and partial FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – reasonable efforts made to canvass a range of views from both sides in context – impartial – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] State of the Nation was broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 10 June 2004. The two-hour programme was a live panel and studio audience discussion, in which the participants discussed race issues between Māori and Pakeha in New Zealand society. The programme was hosted by Anita McNaught, and co-hosted by Robert Rakete and Kerre Woodham. Complaints [2] Colin Cross complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced and partial....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about timber treatment T1. 2 or TimberSaver – claimed that product leaves timber vulnerable to borer or rot – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – two statements in breach of Standard 5 – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Osmose as manufacturer of TimberSaver – upheldOrdersBroadcast of a statement Payment of legal costs of $1,500 Payment of costs to the Crown $1,000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on TV One on One News at 6pm on 12 July 2005 stated that TimberSaver (also known as T1. 2), a timber product being used on homes in the wake of the “leaky homes” scandal, was vulnerable to borer or rot....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

ComplaintStepping Out – Documentary New Zealand – documentary about young urban Maori on hikoi in Far North – use of "fuck" and its derivatives – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – language used minimally – appropriate in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Documentary New Zealand: Stepping Out was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 9 October 2000. It followed six young urban Maori as they traced on foot a route taken by their ancestor Tohe down the west coast of the Far North. During the documentary, the words "fuck" and its derivatives were used on several occasions. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the use of such "grossly offensive language"....

ComplaintStrassman – fuck – offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – assessment of context required by standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits bordered on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 5 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Grant Nesdale complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. He argued that television should "upgrade" values, rather than denigrate them. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It also said that television’s role was to reflect society’s values....