Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-059:Te Reo Takiwa O Ngatihine and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-059 PDF686. 17 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-117 Decision No: 1997-118 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-107 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary A scene towards the end of the programme Water Rats broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30 pm on 23 July 1998 depicted a man seizing a policewoman and threatening her with a knife. Mr Parry complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the brandishing of knives in a threatening manner, especially where women were shown as victims, was unacceptable on television. Knives, he wrote, should never be shown used as weapons on television because that led to copycat crimes. TVNZ responded that the showing of knives could not be absolutely banned. What was important, it suggested, was how knives and other weapons were shown and in what context. Here, it wrote, the scene was essential to the drama. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Parry referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

SummaryTwo consecutive episodes of Shortland Street contained a story-line about a nine-year-old boy, previously diagnosed with leukaemia, suffering a relapse and needing further medical treatment. His "mother" was shown receiving medical advice that his chances of survival with a bone marrow transplant were about one in ten. In the next episode, the child was shown bleeding profusely from mouth and nose, because his blood was not clotting properly. The episodes were broadcast on TV2 on 29 and 30 April 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. L D Percy complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the portrayals had a frightening impact on family and child viewers, particularly children who had returned to normal lives after receiving treatment for leukaemia. The depictions should only have been shown in an AO-rated programme, if at all, L D Percy wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on an Auckland homicide – showed victim’s wife and three teenage children being driven away in police car – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – footage of police car was taken in a public place – victim’s family likely vulnerable but disclosure of footage not highly offensive – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 26 September 2008, it was reported that a man had been stabbed and killed in Auckland. In the following item, One News reported from the suburb in which the man lived and interviewed one of his work colleagues, a man who witnessed the incident, and a member of the Auckland Police....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item showed footage of female strippers dancing in a strip club – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority – broadcaster was sufficiently mindful of the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 21 August 2007, reported on the controversy in Australia following an admission by an Australian politician that he had visited a strip club while in New York. The reporter then questioned several New Zealand MPs about whether they had ever been to a strip club....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

ComplaintSix Feet Under – male sex scene – sodomy – breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Six Feet Under is a series about a family of undertakers, and is described by the broadcaster as "black comedy". An episode broadcast on 23 July 2002 at 9. 35pm on TV One included a scene of two males having sex. [2] N N Rodley complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the scene was too graphic, and that he had "never seen two males copulating on TV. " [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said in context the scene did not breach current norms of good taste and decency. [4] Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Rodley referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

ComplaintHolmes – panel discussion on Australian Rugby League’s punishment of John Hopoate who had assaulted other players on the field – humorous approach – breach of good taste and decency – inappropriate for children FindingsStandard G2 – context – topical and newsworthy issue – humour balanced by serious debate – no uphold Standard G12 – current affairs programme – child viewers unlikely to have been watching alone – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7pm on 29 March 2001, focussed on Australian Rugby League’s decision to suspend John Hopoate for twelve weeks. Mr Hopoate had been found guilty of conduct contrary to the true spirit of rugby league for inserting his finger into the backsides of three players during a rugby league match....

Decision The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the film complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing. Mulholland Falls, a film about organised crime in Los Angeles, was broadcast on TV2 on 25 October 1999 beginning at 8. 30pm. It followed the adventures of a special police squad which had been set up to destroy gangs. Stuart Maclean complained to TVNZ that the opening sequence, which depicted what he said was the beginning of oral sex, was not of a standard consistent with good taste and decency and was completely unacceptable at 8. 30pm on a channel which purported to be a family channel. TVNZ assessed the complaint under standards G2 and G12 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

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 1989Fair Go – carried out testing on imported and locally produced olive oil – stated that sensory panel was “IOC accredited” and its supervisor was “the only person qualified by the IOC… to convene a sensory panel” – reported that all European imports failed sensory test and two failed chemical test – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – references to IOC accreditation were inaccurate and gave greater status to the testing than was justified – broadcaster was put on notice that the testing was not “IOC accredited” but nevertheless made statements of fact to that effect – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – notwithstanding finding one aspect of the programme was inaccurate, complainant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and mitigate any resulting unfairness, and its response was adequately presented – not upheld No Order This headnote does…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-043:Edwards and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-043 PDF444. 79 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-072:One New Zealand Foundation Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-072 PDF477. 75 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-161:Baby Relax (NZ) Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-161 PDF1. 3 MB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Close Up item focused on a New Zealand doctor who was offering an experimental stem cell treatment to people with Multiple Sclerosis. Hidden camera footage was obtained by a patient, and parts of it were broadcast in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint from the doctor that he was treated unfairly and his privacy was breached. The doctor was not given a fair opportunity to comment for the programme, his privacy was invaded through the use of a hidden camera, and, as the raw footage from the consultation was unavailable, the broadcaster could not demonstrate that the level of public interest in the footage outweighed the breach of privacy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The election coverage programme Vote 2014 included footage of Te Ururoa Flavell speaking to Māori Party supporters in te reo Māori. One of the presenters said, '[O]bviously as he's speaking in Māori, in te reo, and the vast majority of us aren't going to understand that. . . let's go back to David Cunliffe. . . ' and the broadcast crossed to Mr Cunliffe's speech. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the comment was racist and unfair. Although the comment was disrespectful and dismissive of the fact that te reo Māori is an official language of New Zealand, it did not reach the high threshold necessary to encourage discrimination or denigration, and was not unfair to Mr Flavell, especially in the context of an important political event....