Search

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – reported domestic violence statistics showing an increase in the number of deaths caused by family violence – contained interviews with Labour Party spokesperson for Women’s Affairs, and Christchurch Women’s Refuge representative – allegedly in breach of standards relating to balance, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – item focused on statistics showing increase in deaths caused by family violence – it did not comment on the gender of perpetrators and victims, and did not specify that the increase in deaths was among women only – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on recently released statistics for domestic violence in New Zealand....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Seven Sharp – in reference to the ongoing Novopay debacle, the presenter stated, “how many of us still give a toss? ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority declines to determine the complaint on the basis it is frivolous in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for Seven Sharp, a New Zealand current affairs and entertainment show, contained the following dialogue: Presenter 1: Happy six-month anniversary, Novopay. Look at you, you’ve been an absolute dream come true [sarcastic voice]. Presenter 2: Yes, it’s the relationship from hell for teachers and the pay system, but be honest, how many of us still give a toss?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Go Girls – included brief shot of two men kissing – allegedly in breach of children’s interests and controversial issues standardsFindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – kiss was brief and innocuous – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A promo for the comedy-drama series Go Girls included a brief shot of two men kissing. The promo screened during the host programme Masterchef: The Professionals – Australia which was classified G (General), and was broadcast at about 5. 15pm on 4 June 2013 on TV One. [2] Katherine Hindson made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging the footage of two men kissing was inappropriate to screen during children’s viewing times. [3] Ms Hindson raised the controversial issues and children’s interests standards....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on the activities of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God (UCKG) which was said to be part of a “Pay and Pray” movement – profiled an ex-member, X, who claimed that she made substantial donations to the church – included hidden camera footage of church service – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – X was identifiable and item disclosed private facts about her – however, X was a willing participant and there is insufficient evidence to show she withdrew her consent to the broadcast – item did not breach X’s privacy – Bishop and Pastor were identifiable in hidden camera footage but did not have an interest in seclusion in a church service that was open and accessible to the general public –…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – reality series following lifeguards at Piha Beach – question whether the Authority has jurisdiction to accept the complaint FindingsMr Wallis’ original email was not a valid “formal complaint” – TVNZ responded appropriately to Mr Wallis – Authority does not have jurisdiction to accept referral on the basis that TVNZ did not respond to his “formal complaint” under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Piha Rescue, a reality series following the work of lifeguards at Piha Beach, was broadcast on 16 January 2012 on TV One. [2] Phil Wallis emailed TVNZ’s “Viewer Correspondence” email address on 3 February 2012 expressing concerns about “Episode 1 from series 8” of the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on, and interviewed, young Māori activist who expressed his views on the Government’s sale of state assets and mining proposals – presentation of item allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, and discrimination and denigration standardsFindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – views expressed by Wikatane Popata represented one end of a political spectrum – his views were described as radical and audience would have understood that they were not representative of all Māori or young Māori – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, any section of the community – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on the Popata brothers and their political views – reporter took “devil’s advocate” approach and programme included viewer feedback – not upheld Standard 1…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – wanted offender described as “possibly Māori but pale skinned” and “possibly Māori, [with a] light complexion” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – segment did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, Māori as a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A segment on Police Ten 7 profiled an aggravated robbery of a bar in Christchurch. Viewers were told that it was committed by three men, two armed with guns and one armed with a crowbar. The segment included security footage of the robbery, outlined the facts of the case, and outlined ways that viewers may be able to help police identify the offenders....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coronation Street – scene contained two female characters kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and controversial issues standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – kissing scene was brief and innocuous – not made less acceptable by the fact the kiss was between two women – content was consistent with the programme’s G rating and not unsuitable for children – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme was correctly rated G and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes – Coronation Street was a fictional drama – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote does…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-154 Dated the 27th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaint by MINISTER OF HOUSING (HON MURRAY McCULLY) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary Mad Max 2 – The Road Warrior, starting at 9. 15pm, was broadcast on TV2 on 10 April 1999. Referring to a scene which showed a motorcycle gang member raping a woman and then shooting her, B McIntyre complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast breached broadcasting standards. Explaining that the fantasy-adventure film was classified AO, and that it began 45 minutes after the watershed, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint. The violence was justifiable in context, it said, and the sexual content in the scene was not explicit. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, B McIntyre referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint. Decision The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix....

Summary The dissatisfactions expressed by a number of students at the New Zealand Film and Television School in Christchurch were examined in items broadcast on Holmes on 15 and 16 December 1998. A follow-up item was broadcast on Holmes on TV One between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 12 April 1999. The Managing Director of the New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd (Ms Marilyn Hudson) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the April item was unfair and unbalanced, and inaccurate in a number of respects. TVNZ considered that one aspect of the item was unfair, and in breach of the standards, as Ms Hudson was not advised that a telephone conversation between herself and a student, contained in the broadcast, was being recorded. It declined to uphold any other aspect of the complaint relating to the alleged inaccuracies or lack of balance....

ComplaintHolmes – footage of English coach’s half-time speech – offensive language – unsuitable for childrenFindings(1) Standard G2 – use of language not endorsed – no uphold (2) Standard G12 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage from a soccer coach’s half-time speech to players which contained strong language was broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 27 April 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the footage contained repeated and gratuitous offensive language. He contended that the item was offensive and unsuitable for children. TVNZ responded that the item was linked to new research findings that such angry motivational speeches did not assist performance, and maintained that the item was of topical interest....

ComplaintWeddings: Happily Ever After? – update on some couples who appeared in Weddings – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – consent form for footage from Weddings – subsequent information freely given – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Weddings: Happily Ever After? was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2001. The programme reported on the state of the relationships of some of the couples who had appeared on previous episodes of Weddings. [2] Kylie and Simon Bernie, one of the couples, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme had breached standards relating to privacy. Mr and Mrs Bernie maintained that they had not consented to the inclusion of information about them or their baby daughter in the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – interview with Frank Bainimarama – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Mr Bainimarama is a controversial political figure who should expect robust criticism – Mr Bainimarama dealt with fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any statements of fact that were inaccurate or misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 15 November 2010, featured an interview with Frank Bainimarama. The presenter introduced the item by saying: When Commodore Frank Bainimarama expelled our High Commissioner from Fiji last week, it was just the latest in a string of tit-for-tat showdowns. . . He’s resisted being interviewed about the diplomatic stand-off until now....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Tagata Pasifika – item about effects of climate change on Tuvalu – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – not a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Tagata Pasifika, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30am on Sunday 11 April 2010, investigated the situation on Tuvalu in the Pacific and its people’s experiences with the effects of climate change, primarily rising sea levels causing flooding. Near the beginning of the item, a reporter said: Tuvalu is one of the world’s lowest lying countries. Its highest point is four-and-a-half metres above sea level, making it one of the most vulnerable nations to be affected by climate change. . . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about large-scale animal neglect on a farm owned by one of New Zealand’s largest dairy producers – included footage of the complainant – allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – viewers would not have been misled into believing the complainant was involved with animal cruelty on the farm – item accurate on material points of fact – majority – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – parts of the item borderline, but fair overall – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – complainant’s behaviour contributed to the way in which she was portrayed – majority – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....