Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 21/95 Dated the 12th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOANNE DACZO of Pirongia Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 52/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by A B EVANS of Dunedin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaints under s....

Complaint60 Minutes – allegation of bullying in RNZ Navy’s gunnery section – sensational – unfair – unbalancedFindingsStandard G4 – Navy spokesperson responded to detailed allegations – no uphold Standard G6 – full opportunity for Navy to respond – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 60 Minutes, entitled "Breaking Ranks", told the story of one former naval rating who spoke of brutal assaults in the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) gunnery section. Because he had broken the code of silence by accusing instructors of assault, the item reported that he had been forced to leave the Navy. Pauline McIntosh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was based on unsubstantiated evidence and lacked balance....

ComplaintTux Super Dog Challenge – bugger – offensive language FindingsS4(1)(a) – context relevant – not used in anger – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Tux Super Dog Challenge was a series which featured dogs and their owners competing over a range of physical tests in the high country. It was broadcast weekly on TV One at 7. 00pm on Saturdays. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the language used during the episode on 18 November 2000. The use of the word "bugger" on two occasions, he said, was offensive. Acknowledging that the word might be offensive in some contexts, TVNZ said nevertheless it was used in a "friendly" way on this occasion. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Schwabe referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about rescue helicopter trip to Raoul Island following volcanic eruption – one DOC worker missing – member of rescue team commented that supplies included a body bag – complaint that reference to body bag was hurtful to missing worker’s family and item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – news item dealt with reality of situation – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The organisation of a rescue team to fly to Raoul Island to search for a missing Department of Conservation staff member, following a volcanic eruption, was dealt with in an item on One News broadcast on 17 March 2006 beginning at 6. 00pm. The logistics of the helicopter flight were covered as was previous volcanic activity on the island....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintJason Lewis complained that an episode of Coastwatch breached his privacy and was unfair. The item showed him being issued with a $250 fine for having five undersized paua in his catch, two years after he was filmed. The complainant said he had not known he was being filmed for television, and that showing the incident two years after it happened was unfair, particularly as the fine had been waived a week after it was issued. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said the programme had not broadcast any private facts about the complainant, who had been filmed in a public place. Although his fine was subsequently rescinded, the fact remained that he had been caught in possession of undersized paua, and this was still on his record at the Ministry of Fisheries....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Cellularpromo – promo for AO-classified movie broadcast during PGR-rated animated movie – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children's interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – promo did not contain any AO material - promo correctly rated PGR and screened in appropriate host programme – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children's interests in screening the promo during Ratatouille – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the movie Cellular was screened on TV2 on Saturday 14 August 2010, near the end of Ratatouille, an animated movie which was rated PGR and screened at 7. 30pm. Cellular was classified Adults Only and was broadcast at 9. 45pm after Ratatouille....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby – comedy series about a politically incorrect relief teacher – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Episode three of Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, a comedy series about a politically incorrect teacher in a New Zealand school, was screened on TV One on 20 May 2005 at 9. 35pm. [2] The programme’s storyline involved the discovery of a used condom in the reading recovery area of the school, and the subsequent revelation that a young female teacher had been sexually involved with a male student....

An application for leave to appeal this decision was refused by the High Court: CIV 2013-485-1234 [2013] NZHC 1386 PDF59....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-010–024: Sharp and 6 Others and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-010–024 PDF3. 96 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-083:Jones and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-083 PDF2. 47 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-043:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-043 PDF315. 9 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-088:Health Action and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-088 PDF349. 47 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-042:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-042 PDF365. 34 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-001:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-001 PDF280. 04 KB...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A short news item during Breakfast reported that the body of a German hostage, who had been beheaded by militants in the Philippines, had been recovered. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the item depicted a ‘severed head’, which was offensive and unacceptable to broadcast, especially during a time when children were likely to be watching television. In the context of a very brief news report, the item would not have exceeded audience expectations and would not have unduly offended or disturbed viewers. The content shown was not graphic or at a level which required a warning to be given, and the story carried public interest....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on 1 News reporting on the separation of migrant families in the United States. The complaint was that references to President Donald Trump’s ‘immigration crackdown’ and ‘Trump’s policy’ of separating children from their parents were misleading, unbalanced and unfair as the relevant law pre-dated Trump’s presidency. The Authority concluded the broadcast did not breach the accuracy, balance or fairness standards, as the references reasonably reflected the Trump administration’s position regarding the enforcement of criminal prosecutions for illegal immigrants. The Authority emphasised the high level of public and political interest in the story and found that any limitation on the right to freedom of expression on this occasion would be unjustified....