Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 5/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by Dr GRAEME BISHOP of Picton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-073 Dated the 11th day of July 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KAREN DAWKINS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

In a Seven Sharp item, a presenter expressed his surprise by asking an interviewee ‘how the bejesus did a snake get into New Zealand’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint the item breached the good taste and decency standard. While acknowledging terms such as ‘Jesus’ and its variations like ‘bejesus’ may be offensive to some, the Authority found expressions of this nature used as exclamations, will not likely cause widespread undue offence or distress, or undermine widely shared community standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – viewers’ poll questioning whether the New Zealand Government should have apologised to India for Paul Henry’s controversial remarks – included edited footage from a debate on an Indian television network – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – editing of the Indian programme was not misleading – excerpt included comments both for and against Mr Henry – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 8 October 2010, included a poll asking viewers whether they agreed with the New Zealand Government’s apology over Breakfast presenter Paul Henry’s recent controversial remarks....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported that a recent avalanche in the Austrian Alps had killed five skiers. The presenter stated the avalanche was ‘reported to be two kilometres wide and five kilometres high’. A second item on ONE News discussed plans for a new dairy factory in Northland. The reporter said, ‘He’s [farmer interviewed] been in the dairy industry for two years and has record low pay-outs, the latest forecast at around four dollars’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the reference to the avalanche being ‘five kilometres high’ and the reference in the dairy item to a ‘Fonterra pay-out of $4 per annum’ were inaccurate and misleading....

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....

SummaryThe experiences of teenagers who had been involved in romantic liaisons which had turned violent were recounted in a documentary entitled Dating Violence screened on TV2 on 11 November 1999 at 8. 30pm. The programme contained interviews with the young women who were presented as victims of such violence, and with two men who had behaved violently. Rob Thomson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that by showing only women as victims of violence and men as perpetrators, the documentary was biased and unbalanced. He referred to some New Zealand research which he said showed that more women than men were perpetrators of violence. TVNZ noted that while the documentary focused on victims who were women, it did not believe that viewers were invited to draw the conclusion that all such victims were women....

ComplaintThe Last Word – item about high-achieving student – presenter made disparaging comment – unfair FindingsStandard 6 – comment about adolescence rather than the featured student – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item about a high-achieving 13-year-old boy in the United States was broadcast on The Last Word on TV One at 10. 30pm on 10 June 2003. At the item’s conclusion, the presenter made a comment about what she saw as the young man’s sense of self-satisfaction. [2] Frank Rogers complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the presenter’s disparaging comment was unfair and could invite bullying against the studious and clever. [3] In response, TVNZ stressed the style of the programme and the presenter’s well-known disdain for hypocrisy. As it regarded the comment as humorous, TVNZ did not 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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-081:Woolerton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-081 PDF305. 42 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-056:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-056 PDF485. 84 KB...

Complaints Friends – two episodes – references to "peeing" in one and depiction of strippers in the other – offensive behaviour – actors involved aged twenty something – inappropriately classified G – broadcasters not mindful of effect on child viewers FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Standard G8 – affirms positive values – appropriately classified – no uphold Standard G12 – not alarming – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Friends is a long-established sitcom involving the adventures and love lives of six young people living in New York City. A jellyfish sting sequence was dealt with in the episode broadcast on TV2 at 6. 30pm on 29 November 2001 and one of the characters, Joey, recalled that "peeing" on a sting had been recommended as a remedy on the Discovery Channel....

Complaint Holmes – series of items on the "brain drain" – Richard Poole – newspaper advertisement – Business Roundtable backing – unbalanced – news source lacked integrity FindingsStandard G6 – items lacked balance – broadcaster not impartial – Poole’s integrity not forcefully challenged – uphold Standard G15 – Poole an "information source" as required by standard – broadcaster failed to ascertain adequately his integrity/reliability – uphold OrdersBroadcast of statement$2,000 costs to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items broadcast on the Holmes show on TV One on 4, 5 and 6 October 2000 dealt with a perceived "brain drain" whereby young, educated New Zealanders were allegedly leaving New Zealand permanently for better jobs and an enhanced lifestyle overseas. Holmes is broadcast between 7. 00pm and 7. 30pm on weekdays....

Summary In a review of events surrounding the Erebus crash, it was reported that the then CEO of Air New Zealand had told a senior pilot "I’ll cut your f-ing balls off". The remark was quoted in a 60 Minutes item broadcast on 28 November 1999 at 7. 30pm, the 20th anniversary of the crash of the Air New Zealand plane in the Antarctic. Mr Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that such language was offensive, unacceptable and entirely unnecessary, particularly in a programme which dealt with a subject still painful for the friends and relatives of those killed. TVNZ emphasised the context in which the remark was made and suggested the comment reflected the bitterness and unresolved questions arising from the disaster. In its view, the phrase spoke volumes about the emotions aroused by the debate....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds – storyline involved an Alzheimer’s sufferer who enlisted the help of his son to capture, torture and kill young blonde women – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – violence was graphic and deeply disturbing – amounted to stronger material which warranted AO 9. 30pm classification – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – programme should have been broadcast later – warning was not adequate – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme material warranted higher classification – warning was inadequate – level of violence and menacing themes were more extreme than in other 8....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on recent memorial to Māori Battalion in Gisborne – noted Maori Battalion had highest casualty rate of any New Zealand unit in the war – allegedly inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 5 (accuracy) – ambiguity in words used – complainant and broadcaster took different meaning from words – unable to determine accuracy – declined to determine under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News on 11 July 2004 noted the unveiling of a memorial to the Māori Battalion which fought in the Second World War. The item included the statement: By the time the Māori Battalion arrived home, they’d suffered the highest casualty rate of any unit in the war, 680 men killed....

ComplaintFair Go – item about identity theft – reporter obtained driver’s licence in someone else’s name – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 referred only – no encouragement to break the law – fraud and crime elements emphasised – high public interest and educative value – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the issue of identity theft. It featured a Fair Go reporter investigating the issue by obtaining a driver’s licence in someone else’s name. The item was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 9 April 2003. [2] The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had failed to refer to the "criminal" actions of the reporter in obtaining the driver’s licence....

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

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out during an anti-terror raid in Brussels. During the item, the Europe Correspondent stated, ‘We’ve now heard that one suspect has been neutralised’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the term ‘neutralised’ was not accurate, appropriate or neutral language. The Authority found the choice of language was not a material point of fact in the item, which focused on an anti-terror raid linked to the Paris terror attacks. Further, the term ‘neutralised’ is at times used in the context of reporting on police or counter-terrorism action. The use of this term was not biased against, and did not imply fault on the part of, the Belgian Police. Not upheld: Accuracy, Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] A news item on Breakfast reported on a shoot-out that occurred during an anti terror raid in Brussels....