Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-002 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-111 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEVE BISHOP of Albany TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintTeachers – promo – visuals of naked man – broadcaster not mindful of effect on children FindingsStandard G12 – promo farcical – not damaging to children – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the programme Teachers was shown during the One News bulletin broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 20 August 2001. The visuals included a naked man in a foetal position, and the man running naked down a corridor with his hands covering his private parts. [2] Glenette Menzies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo should not have been shown at that hour. [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint, stating that the visuals of the naked man were not explicit and did not stray beyond currently accepted norms of decency and taste....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – 24 December item interviewed woman whose husband was killed by a drunk driver – 7 January item spoke to youths appearing in court after being arrested for drink-driving – both items allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items were straightforward news reports – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – not misleading to omit discussion of the points raised by the complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the former chairman of Bridgecorp, Bruce Nelson Davidson, appearing in the District Court – stated that Mr Davidson was a past president of the Institute of Directors and of the Auckland District Law Society – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and programme information standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcaster upheld accuracy complaint – action taken by broadcaster sufficient – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – 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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Scrubs – storyline involving a patient who had taken erectile dysfunction pills – allegedly in breach of children’s interests standard Findings Standard 9 (children’s interests) – storyline was handled in a discreet and inexplicit manner – acceptable within PGR programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Scrubs, a comedy programme following the lives of staff at a fictional hospital, was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Wednesday 21 May 2008. One of three storylines in the episode followed a doctor, Elliot, as she treated a man who had a persistent erection after taking erectile dysfunction pills. [2] The storyline was introduced when Elliot addressed a patient in the waiting room, asking “what seems to be the problem?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday and One News – reported on a police drugs bust involving former Australian swimmer Scott Miller – Charlotte Dawson mentioned as being his ex-wife – one item included wedding photos of Ms Dawson and Mr Miller – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – items were accurate on points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Ms Dawson was treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Work and Income computer error leading to disclosure of information about some Work and Income clients, and ramifications for beneficiaries – allegedly sensationalist, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – Ministry’s position not adequately presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained many inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Ministry and its chief executive – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast {1} An item on One News, broadcast on TV One on 27 November 2003, reported on a computer error made by Work and Income, a division of the Ministry of Social Development, which had caused some information about some Work and Income clients to be sent to other clients....

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

ComplaintThe Sopranos – scene in which child says "Fuck you, Santa! " – not socially responsible – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Cross Reference: Decision No. 2000-104 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of The Sopranos was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 4 October 2001. The Sopranos is a drama about an American-Italian mafia family living in the eastern United States. [2] Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a scene in which a child says "Fuck you, Santa! ". He considered that it was an "outrage" that "the programme makers would allow a child to say something like that" and socially irresponsible of TVNZ to allow the broadcast. [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintWhat Now? – children’s programme – skit – revolved around farting – breach of good taste and decency – broadcaster not mindful of the effect on children FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 9 – skit would appeal to children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] What Now? , a children’s programme, broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30am on 21 April 2002, featured a parody of a well-known television commercial. The parody revolved around "farting". [2] P M McGrath complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was disgusting, and not appropriate viewing material for children. [3] Declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said it was the policy of What Now? to encourage children to be relaxed about bodily functions and that the programme’s child development experts endorsed this approach....

ComplaintOne News – report referred to film "Austin Powers – The Spy Who Shagged Me" – "shagged" – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – decline to determine Cross ReferenceDecision No: 1999-163 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on One News broadcast by TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 12 January 2000 described the development of a new open top sports car by Jaguar. In that context, reference was made to the film "Austin Powers – The Spy Who Shagged Me". Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that "shagged" was an offensive, aggressive and macho anti-woman term which was unacceptable for broadcast at a time when children were encouraged to watch television....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Votes for Women: What Really Happened? (More or Less) – Sunday Theatre docudrama about New Zealand being the first country to give women the right to vote – allegedly inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme was a docudrama which legitimately employed dramatic licence to portray historical events – not a news, current affairs, or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Votes for Women: What Really Happened? (More or Less) was broadcast as part of TV One's Sunday Theatre timeslot on 24 June 2012. It was a docudrama based on historical facts about how women in New Zealand were given the right to vote in 1893....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-078:Miller and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-078 PDF659. 74 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-159:Greenpeace New Zealand Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-159 PDF1. 53 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast of footage of the dog handler, taken from another programme series, breached his privacy. A combination of factors meant that Mr Moore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the footage, including that it was filmed in a public place, and he had already consented to its release into the public domain as part of a reality television series. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Sunday reported on an incident in which an innocent civilian, X, was attacked by a police dog when a police dog handler failed to follow correct protocol....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Fair Go reported on an elderly man who had difficulties with his dentures and explored his legal rights. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint from the dentist who made the dentures, finding that he was only identifiable to a very limited group of people, no private facts were disclosed about him and the disclosure was not highly offensive as he was not portrayed in an overly negative light. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Fair Go discussed the case of an elderly man, X, who complained of difficulties with his new dentures. [2] X's dentist, DD, complained that the item reflected negatively on his dental practice and the services offered to X, which breached his privacy and was unfair....