Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenter said there was a “wind chill factor well below zero in several states” in America – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – complaint vexatious and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 December 2010, reported that “severe winter storms are still causing havoc closing airports and delaying flights across America. Snow, ice and a wind chill factor well below zero in several states, plus violent tornadoes in others, are testing the Christmas patience of thousands of travellers....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item featured a man who had been made redundant – claimed he was not eligible for the Government’s ReStart package – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item inaccurate in stating that the man was not eligible for ReStart – also omitted the fact that the man received holiday pay which meant he was effectively on full pay until a week before ReStart payments began – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 29 January 2009, featured a man who had been made redundant from his printing job and now found that his redundancy pay was dwindling and he was struggling to buy food and pay bills....

Summary A representative of the Airline Pilots’ Association was interviewed on Holmes, broadcast at 7. 00pm on TV One on 2 September 1999, in connection with a strike by Ansett pilots. Mr Geddes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was biased, unbalanced and actively denigrated pilots involved in the dispute. He said he was appalled at the rudeness of the interviewer and his unprofessional, discourteous behaviour. TVNZ conceded that the interview could be described as "robust" but did not agree that it was rude or biased. The pilots’ representative was given full opportunity to respond on their behalf, it argued. It explained that, as management had declined to appear, balance was achieved by the presenter adopting a "devil’s advocate" position in order to prevent the item from becoming a chronicle of viewpoints from the Pilots’ Association....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-058 Dated the 28th day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DR GLYN THOMAS of Palmerston North TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryLight-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7. 30–8. 00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology. Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996 - 030 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CENTRE FOR PSYCHO- SOCIOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section section 8(1B)(b)(i)Eating Media Lunch – host introduced the episode by saying “Good evening, kia ora, fuck your mother” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Eating Media Lunch was a series broadcast on TV2 that lampooned aspects of the media both in New Zealand and overseas. The host introduced the episode broadcast at 10pm on Friday 2 November 2007 with the following words: Good evening, kia ora, fuck your mother. [2] The episode was preceded by a verbal and visual warning which said: This programme is rated Adults Only. It contains language and sexual material that may offend some people. Complaint [3] Martin Taylor made a formal complaint about the introduction to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster....

SummaryAward of Costs – Re Decision No: 1996-094 and 1996-095Pursuant to its powers under s. 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to award such costs and expenses as are reasonable, the Authority has exercised its discretion to award costs to Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd, following its decision to uphold AMI's complaint about that Fair Go programme broadcast on TV One on 18 March 1996 lacked balance. The Authority records that it invited and received submissions from Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd and from Television New Zealand Ltd on the question of costs and, after careful consideration of the arguments from both parties, it decided an award of costs was appropriate in all of the circumstances of the case. CostsUnder s. 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to pay costs to Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd in the sum of $3000....

ComplaintsShortland Street – character with bipolar disorder – portrayed as obsessive, delusional and violent – inaccurate – unfair – stereotyping FindingsStandard G1/Standard 5 – fiction – not applicable Standard G6/Standard 4 and Guideline 4a – fiction – not applicable Standard G13/Standard 6 and Guideline 6g – no discrimination – dramatic work – no uphold Standard G20/Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – fiction – not applicable Standard G21/ Standard 5 and Guideline 5a – fiction – not applicable This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A storyline about a character with bipolar disorder ("Jack Hewitt") screened during episodes of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on weeknights from 3 December to 14 December 2001 and on 21 January 2002. During these episodes, "Jack" attempted to kill "Chris Warner", kidnapped "Rachel McKenna" and then committed suicide....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News– item reported on the Warriors rugby league team’s anti-bullying campaign – included video footage of high school students fighting – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violenceFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – introduction clearly signposted that item contained violent material – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

ComplaintLove Thy Neighbour – examined dispute between neighbours – complainant declined invitation to participate – address disclosed – owner and house shown – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – principles (i) and (v) relevant – (vi) applies – public interest defence applicable – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The series Love Thy Neighbour examines neighbour disputes. A boundary dispute between neighbours in Whangarei was one of the items dealt with in the repeat episode broadcast at 11. 15am on TV One on 7 September 2002. [2] B Jobe complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the disclosure of the information which identified them and their house breached their privacy. [3] In response, TVNZ advised the Authority that the item had reported the circumstances of a neighbourhood dispute, and had not disclosed any private information....

ComplaintStrassman – fuck– offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – consideration of context required as specified in Standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits – bordering on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 19 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It pointed out that the Broadcasting Standards Authority had declined to uphold an earlier complaint from Mr Schwabe about such language in Strassman....

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand National Party – John Key pictured in moving vehicle – complaint that Mr Key was not wearing a seatbelt – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E1 – standards in the Free-to-Air Television Code apply to election programmes Standard 2 (law and order) – advertisement showed Mr Key removing seatbelt – reasonably attentive viewer would have concluded that he was wearing a seatbelt – even if he was not shown wearing a seatbelt, would not have breached Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – advertisement did not contain any material likely to disturb or alarm children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Two and a Half Men and Scrubs promo – male character in Scrubs promo stated "I don’t like doing things I'm not good at", to which female character responded, "Yeah, that's why we don't have sex much" – male doctor in Scrubs promo talking to a female nurse said "My post-op is going in and out of consciousness. You know what I'd like to go in and out of?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Packed to the Rafters – woman briefly put her hand down the front of her boyfriend’s pants, who jumped and exclaimed “You’ve got chilli on your hands! ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – scene was fleeting and playful – intended to be humorous rather than sexual – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – content was not unsuitable for supervised child viewers – promo correctly rated PGR and screened during Coronation Street – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo did not contain AO material and would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – incident involving alleged doctor-on-doctor assault – interviewee commented on profession’s reaction to incident – three complaints – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair to doctor and othersFindings Standard 4 (balance) – unbalanced – Mr Ngaei’s viewpoint not advanced – reasonable efforts to obtain his views not made – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Mr Ngaei – upheld Standard 6 (discrimination) – item did not encourage discrimination against doctors – not upheld Orders$1,700 costs to complainant $2,500 costs to CrownThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Holmes broadcast at 7....