Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-054 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER NEWFIELD of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-001 Dated the 18th day of January 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KEITH PETRIE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-159:Greenpeace New Zealand Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-159 PDF1. 53 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-011:Turner and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-011 PDF516. 75 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A repeat broadcast of an episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The Authority did not uphold the complaint from the surviving driver that the repeat broadcast, without his consent, breached his privacy. The complainant signed a consent form, and the timeline between the accident and the repeat broadcast more than four years later, in the absence of any further objections from him, suggested that he gave his consent freely, and not under duress. Not Upheld: PrivacyIntroduction[1] An episode of Serious Crash Unit investigated a collision between two vehicles where one driver died. The crash occurred on 4 December 2009, and the episode subject to complaint – a repeat broadcast – screened on 24 May 2014 on TV ONE....

Complaint60 Minutes – Dover Samuels – Police investigation found insufficient evidence to prosecute – inaccurate to state he was "cleared" of the charges FindingsStandard G1 – inaccurate use of the word "cleared’ – does not mean "insufficient evidence" – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A 60 Minutes item, broadcast on 17 December 2000 on TV One at 7. 35pm, looked into allegations made against Dover Samuels MP, which had been forwarded to the Police by the Prime Minister. Near the end of the item, the reporter stated that Mr Samuels had been "cleared" of previous allegations investigated by the Police. Peter Low complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that TV One had been inaccurate in using the word "cleared". Mr Low explained that the Police had used the term "insufficient evidence"....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-034 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARK EDEN of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary Some dissatisfaction expressed by three purchasers of cars from Saevue Motors in New Plymouth was considered in an item broadcast on Holmes, between 7. 00–7. 30pm on 11 December 1997. The possibility of odometer tampering was raised. Mr Rawlings complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and unfair. He noted that there had been no effort to gauge the extent of the problem among the company's total customer base, and he claimed that the company was portrayed as a "monster". On the basis that the information contained in the item justified the investigation, TVNZ reported that it had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the company to participate in the programme. It declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Rawlings referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-127 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK KEARNEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary An episode of Dharma and Greg was broadcast on TV2 on 14 October 1998 between 7. 30-8. 00pm. A male character described two women as "deaf Cockney humpbacks". Mr Kirkland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the portrayal of deaf people in the programme was discriminatory and paternalistic, and perpetuated a stereotypical view about deaf people being stupid. He sought an apology from the broadcaster. TVNZ pointed out that this was a comedy programme in which the two characters regularly assumed character roles. In this case one decided to be a humpback who was hard of hearing while the other adopted a Cockney accent. A male character said to them "Hello deaf Cockney humpbacks". TVNZ said it found nothing in this exchange which suggested that deaf people were intellectually limited, nor anything that would encourage discrimination against deaf people....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Coronation Street – broadcast during Breakfast – contained brief image of a woman slapping a man’s face – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – shot of woman slapping a man’s face was very brief – Breakfast was unclassified and targeted at adults – promo unobjectionable in this context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Breakfast was aimed at adults and any children viewing were unlikely to be doing so unsupervised – promo would not have disturbed or alarmed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintPerfect Match – Featured a gay man in search of a male partner – broadcast during school holidays at 8. 30pm – alleged erroneous message – disturbing to children FindingsStandard 9 Guidelines 9a and 9c – broadcaster considered children’s viewing interests – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode in the programme Perfect Match featured a gay man in search of a male partner. It was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Thursday 17 July 2003. [2] Mr Gardiner complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme, which screened at a time when “older” children were still watching television, contained a message that incorrectly implied gay relationships were normal. [3] In response, TVNZ noted that the programme was clearly classified Adults Only and disputed the view that the programme could harm children....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item used the word “gay” in the context of reporting on influx of homosexual couples from Australia getting married in New Zealand as civil unions are not legally recognised in Australia – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness) – “gay” is a commonly accepted and widely used term for homosexuals – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News– item on the arrest of five protesters demonstrating against a 1080 poison drop on a farm – Department of Conservation logo was displayed behind the presenter as he introduced the item – allegedly inaccurate and misleading FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – use of DOC log was careless, but would not have influenced viewers’ understanding of the issue reported on – not misleading – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast at 6pm on Tuesday 15 June 2010, discussed the arrest of five protesters demonstrating against a 1080 poison drop on a farm on the West Coast. [2] At the start of the item, a graphic showing the Department of Conservation (DOC) logo with 1080 pellets underneath it was displayed behind the presenter as he introduced the item....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a cat-themed episode of What Now, one of the presenters offered a number of wacky cures for his co-presenter’s cat allergy, including encouraging a dog to lick what appeared to be peanut butter off his face. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme made light of allergies and used a common food allergen, peanut butter, in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. The presenter was not allergic to peanuts and no mention was made of peanut allergies. It was unfortunate that peanut butter featured, given that peanuts are a common food allergen, but the food product was irrelevant; the point was to test dog saliva as a possible cure for the presenter’s cat allergy, and no attention was drawn to the actual product....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-079:Disabled Persons Assembly (New Zealand) Inc (Auckland Central Region) and Television New Zealand - 1993-079 PDF301. 22 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld complaints from two complainants, a Christian organisation and its director, about an episode of Sunday which investigated gay conversion therapy and whether this practice was happening in New Zealand. The director, ‘X’, was filmed covertly during the programme, appearing to offer gay conversion therapy to an undercover reporter, ‘Jay’, who posed as a young Christian ‘struggling with same sex attraction’. The Authority found that the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera in this case represented a highly offensive intrusion upon X’s interest in seclusion and that, on its face, this broadcast breached their privacy. However, the Authority found that the high level of public interest, both in the programme as a whole and in the hidden camera footage, justified the broadcaster’s use of a hidden camera....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – episode showed three dogs being taken from their owner as they were not registered and were aggressive towards other dogs – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – focus was on dogs being removed from owner because they were not registered – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Chair Peter Radich declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on One News reported on court proceedings involving the complainant, a professional harness racing trainer and driver. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that two statements in the item were inaccurate and unfair, because they allegedly portrayed her as a ‘drugs cheat’ and were misleading. Taking into account all of the charges and the nature of the offending, the statements would not have misled viewers and did not cause any unwarranted harm to the complainant’s reputation. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness Introduction [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One on 25 June 2013, reported on court proceedings involving the complainant, Nicola Chilcott, a professional harness racing trainer and driver....