Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-016–018:Hon Sir Roger Douglas, Hon Richard Prebble and Rt Hon David Lange and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-016, 1991-017, 1991-018 PDF2. 98 MB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 97/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-025 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH (Hon Jenny Shipley) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-046 Dated the 22nd day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P G CURRAN of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 135 /94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (Rt Hon HELEN CLARK) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – headline summary on the respective National Party and Labour Party plans to provide financial assistance to New Zealanders who lost their jobs as a result of the economic crisis – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – statement that Labour’s policy applied to anybody who lost their job was inaccurate – headline summary would have misled viewers – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of accuracy No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a round-up of the day’s top stories on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

Summary The forthcoming Parole Board hearing for Paul Dally was dealt with during an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One beginning at 7. 00pm on 18 August 1999. Mr Dally had pleaded guilty to the murder of 13 year-old Karla Cardno in 1989, and the item included an interview with Mr Mark Middleton, Karla’s stepfather. In response to some questions as to why he had asked the Parole Board to release Mr Dally, Mr Middleton said that it provided the opportunity for him and his friends to "take him". R J Healing complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the reporter’s questions were insensitive, and had encouraged a distressed man into making statements he might later regret. TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint as a breach of the standards relating either to taste or fairness....

Summary A news item on One Network News featured a New Zealand make-up artist, who specialised in painting naked bodies in all-over body paint. She was shown painting a female model for an assignment. An outline of the model’s breasts could be seen through the body paint. The item was broadcast on TV One on 26 April 1999, commencing at 6. 00 pm. Kristian Harang complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that it was offensive to show a naked woman’s breast, and the item would give young people the impression that it was okay to be half naked in public. TVNZ said that the item was not prurient, it was discreetly shot and cleverly demonstrated how the body-painting process provided an effective covering for the model. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintAA complained that a Close Up item breached his privacy and was unfair to him by allowing his ex-wife and her father to allege that he was a wife-beater and a racist. The complainant said that Close Up had taken part in a "malicious attempt" to stop him being granted permanent residency in New Zealand. He said the item was also inaccurate, including allowing a high-ranking Immigration official to say that he had failed to declare a UK conviction for common assault on his immigration application. He provided a copy of his immigration application to show that he had declared the conviction before entering New Zealand. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said reasonable efforts had been made to get AA's side of the story, but AA had refused to be interviewed....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiling the Destiny Church and its pastor – interviews with the pastor, former members of the Church, a university lecturer and the director of Cultwatch – allegedly unbalanced and unfair to the Destiny ChurchFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – sufficient opportunity given to the Church and its pastor to present its views on the controversial issues – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Church given opportunity to respond to issues raised – not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Sunday shown on TV One at 7. 30pm on 3 October 2004 profiled the Destiny Church and its leader, Pastor Brian Tamaki. The segment gave background information about the church and its recent march to Parliament protesting the Civil Union Bill....

Complaint Moving On – offensive language – "pissing out" – incorrect classification – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 – context – no uphold Standard 7 – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard 9 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Moving On was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 30pm on 25 April 2002. The programme followed the fortunes of people moving house. [2] Gordon Hayes complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a sequence during which a man featured on the programme used the phrase "pissing out" to describe steam coming from his car’s engine. Mr Hayes said that the phrase was "crude language which should not be allowed in a G programme". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Green Party was calling for an urgent safety review of non-stick cookware – claimed the US Environmental Protection Agency had found possible links between non-stick cookware, cancer and birth defects – veterinarian stated that non-stick pans could be deadly to household birds – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item contained misleading and inaccurate statements – would have unnecessarily alarmed viewers – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to any person or organisation taking part in the programme – not upheldOrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $927. 50 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – image of a penis superimposed over a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfairFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfairness – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 9. 50pm on 7 December 2004 an item on Eating Media Lunch on TV2 showed celebrities arriving for a magazine launch on Auckland’s waterfront. The presenter of the programme spoke with two radio personalities, one of whom dared the presenter to make fun of them. The image of a penis was then superimposed over the man’s face....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Seven Sharp featured a story about two local residents, labelled ‘herb detectives’, who were determined to track down the man they believed was responsible for stealing their herbs. The reporter and the ‘herb detectives’ visited the local market looking for the alleged thief and spoke to a woman, Shunfang Shen, who was selling herbs. The reporter asked Mrs Shen where her herbs were from, and one of the residents said, ‘It looked very much like my mint. ’ The Authority upheld a complaint from Mrs Shen that the action taken by TVNZ, in upholding her complaint that the item was inaccurate and unfair, was insufficient. The Authority acknowledged that TVNZ attempted to remedy the breach of standards, including by broadcasting a correction several days after the item....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Women in Blue, a reality TV series following the work of New Zealand policewomen, contained footage of a search warrant being executed at the complainant’s property. QS, who at the time of filming was an occupant of the property, made a complaint that broadcasting the footage without her knowledge or consent breached her privacy. The Authority found that the broadcast did not breach her privacy because she was not identifiable in the broadcast. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Women in Blue, a reality TV series following the work of New Zealand policewomen, contained footage of a search warrant being executed at the complainant’s property. Introducing the footage, the narrator referred to a ‘suspected illegal drug operation’....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]ONE News reported that Cadbury chocolate bars were set to ‘shrink by 10 percent’, from 220 grams to 200 grams. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the item was inaccurate because it was wrong to use the word ‘shrink’ to refer to a weight measurement and because the difference in grams was 9. 1 percent, not 10 percent. The Authority found the complaint to be trivial as the complainant did not outline why the difference was material or why it would have impacted viewers’ understanding of the item as a whole. Declined to Determine: Accuracy   Introduction [1] ONE News reported that Cadbury chocolate bars were set to ‘shrink by 10 percent’, from 220 grams to 200 grams....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Sunday discussed AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd’s alleged unsafe sex practices with escorts. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item breached Mr Rudd’s privacy. The information disclosed during the item was already in the public domain and widely broadcast, so did not constitute private facts. The item also did not disclose any personal details about Mr Rudd for the purposes of encouraging harassment. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An item on Sunday discussed former AC/DC drummer Phil Rudd and his alleged behaviour with escorts, in particular his unsafe sex practices. The item featured an interview with an anonymous former escort who had been hired by Mr Rudd. The item also showed images of the outside of Mr Rudd’s house and boat....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on a local murder trial and included footage of a witness giving evidence in court. The witness was named but his face was not shown and his voice was disguised. The Authority did not uphold a complaint from a member of the public that the item breached the witness’s privacy. While he was identifiable in the item, no private information was disclosed about him. The footage of the witness was taken during open court and there was no name suppression order in place. The evidence the witness gave at trial had already been widely reported by other media outlets at the time of broadcast. Therefore, the witness had no reasonable expectation of privacy over the information disclosed about him, and his privacy was not breached....