Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-118 Dated the 19th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J D�ERRICO of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-043 Dated the 30th day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID HAY DEPUTY MAYOR of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling (Chairperson) L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two answers provided during Mastermind New Zealand, about historical New Zealand events, were inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority noted that both questions appeared to have been answered accurately by the contestant. Viewers were unlikely to be left misled or misinformed by the omission of further context around these answers, particularly given the well-known quiz format of the programme. The programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance, given historical events were raised only briefly in the form of quiz questions, and the requirements of the balance standard therefore did not apply.   Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host and others were shown not wearing lifejackets while on a fishing boat. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that it was irresponsible to broadcast footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets. Although the Authority understood why certain parts of the footage shown in the programme were a cause of concern for the complainant regarding water safety, these issues were unable to be addressed under the responsible programming standard. Not Upheld: Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] During an episode of Hooked in NZ, the host visited the Far North of New Zealand and went fishing at his childhood fishing spot with family and close friends. While on the fishing boat, the men were shown not wearing lifejackets. [2] Graeme Carlaw complained that broadcasting footage of people fishing without wearing lifejackets promoted irresponsible behaviour....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Q+A discussing the lack of diversity among the National Party’s then top-12 Members of Parliament. In the segment, panellist Laila Harre commented, ‘the whole front kind of line-up looks like they’ve had a bit of an accident with the bleach’. The complaint was that this comment was inappropriate, unprofessional and racist. The Authority found the comment did not threaten community standards of taste and decency, or encourage discrimination or denigration of any section of the community, in the context of a political discussion in the public interest. The remaining standards complained about either did not apply or were not breached. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]At the end of an episode of Seven Sharp, presenter Mike Hosking read out a letter from a disgruntled viewer about comments he had made during an earlier episode about music group One Direction. The letter contained numerous expletives which were 'beeped' out during the broadcast. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the 'disgusting' language was contrary to good taste and decency and children's interests. Beeping is a commonly employed broadcasting technique to mask potentially offensive language. While most viewers would have discerned what the words were, in the context of an unclassified current affairs programme targeted at adults, which is known for being humorous and at times provocative, the segment did not threaten standards....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-023:Burt and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-023 PDF293. 72 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item profiled the complainant, Donald McDonald – introduction referred to some of his previous complaints including “that a One News isobar on the weather map was a subliminal advertisement for the movie Shrek”, and that he “complained to the Wellington City Council that its fireworks displays contained phallic symbols” – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item did not suggest that all or most of his complaints were unfounded but that Mr McDonald complained “too often about too little” – provided context to complaints and complainant put forward his own perspective – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of fairness This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item showed brief footage of a stolen car, including its number plate – allegedly in breach of privacy standardFindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant and her husband were not identifiable through the footage of their car and number plate – no private facts were disclosed about the complainant or her husband that would be considered highly offensive to an objective reasonable person – item focused on the offender and how his background may have contributed to his offending – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An item on Sunday profiled a young man who was a recidivist car thief and contained interviews with the man and with his family members about his background....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-168:Smits and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-168 PDF319. 29 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-037:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-037117. 2 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item titled “The Big Warm” discussed economist Gareth Morgan’s research into global warming – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – programme presented miscellany of views – did not attempt to debate whether global warming was caused by human activity – acknowledged the existence of other perspectives – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to show Takuu as “the ugly face of global warming” – one aspect upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 3 May 2009, was introduced by the reporter as follows: The alarmists say the world is in full meltdown, that we’re all going to fry and mankind is to blame. The sceptics say it’s an absolute nonsense....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – contained interview with a psychologist who discussed different personality types in the workplace – presenter used the term “schizos” before and during the interview – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments lacked necessary invective to reach threshold – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any person or organisation he felt had been treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 6. 30am on Tuesday 22 September 2009, contained an interview with psychologist and employment relations expert Dr Giles Burch. [2] At 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Build a New Life in the Country – contained coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Action Taken – broadcaster upheld the complaint, apologised and took steps to prevent future mistakes – action taken sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Build a New Life in the Country (rated G) was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Saturday 7 June 2008. The series followed British couples as they pursued their dream homes and lifestyles. In the 7 June episode, Jason and Phillipa had bought a chateau in France and planned to renovate it and open it as a bed and breakfast. The episode tracked their progress over nine months. [2] At approximately 7....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nailed, Sorted, Exposed – promos for the programme contained footage not used in the actual broadcast – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – person alleged to have been treated unfairly did not take part in and was not referred to in the item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....