Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-098 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP DUNLOP of Pokeno Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989How to Look Good Naked – episode contained images of women with bare breasts, and women in their underwear – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – images of semi-naked women were not sexualised or salacious – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme classified PGR – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of How to Look Good Naked, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 7 September 2007, contained video footage of women with bare breasts and women in their underwear. [2] The episode was preceded by a visual and verbal warning that stated: This programme is rated PGR....

Summary An item on 60 Minutes focussed on the Philadelphia Police Force, its Commissioner and its facilities and practices. The introduction to the item summarised some perceived problems of the New Zealand Police Force. The item was broadcast on TV One on 18 October 1998 commencing at 7. 30 pm. Deputy Commissioner Barry Matthews on behalf of the New Zealand Police complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate. He also complained that the item was unbalanced in failing to allow New Zealand Police the opportunity to present their crime strategies, and explain why the American practices were inapplicable. TVNZ responded that the item was not about the New Zealand Police, and so input from them was unnecessary....

Summary The final episode in the series Weddings reported that a marriage featured in an earlier episode had broken up after two months. It contained footage of the wedding shown in the earlier programme, and included comment from the bride about the reasons for the break-up. The episode was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 00pm on 14 June 1999. MT, the bridegroom involved, complained directly to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast had breached his privacy. He had declined to take part in the follow-up programme, he wrote, and had informed the programme maker that he wanted neither his name used nor his face shown. He said he felt exploited by the use of the wedding photographs on the programme....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-107 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News, Marae and Te Karere – One News newsreader referred to Prince William as the popular choice for the next “King of England” – Marae discussion on constitutional change – presenter and guests referred to “Queen of England” – Te Karere item referred to Princes Charles as the “monarch of England” – all items allegedly inaccurate, and in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 – no basis for complaint – not upheld Standard 5 – not inaccurate – use of phrase “Queen/King of England” acceptable description – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast items on Marae on 14 November 2004, One News on 11 February 2005 and Te Karere on 8 March 2005, all of which referred in some way to the British Royal Family....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – scene purported to show Shrek the sheep being slaughtered – allegedly breached good taste and decencyFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item not overtly graphic – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch broadcast on TV2 on 8 June 2004 at 9. 30pm included a scene purporting to show “Shrek” the sheep being slaughtered and then skinned. Shrek came to national prominence after he was captured on a high country farm in central Otago where he had been hiding out for six years. He was shorn on national television and had a fleece weighing 27. 5kgs....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – downloadable episode of programme on TVNZ’s website – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaint Findings Not a broadcast within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Fair Go, broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2004, featured a property development company of which Kevin Davies was a director. [2] Mr Davies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd on 4 June 2004, alleging that the programme breached standards of balance, fairness and accuracy. [3] TVNZ declined to accept his complaint, as it was lodged outside the 20 working-day period specified in section 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintStrassman – ventriloquist – offensive language – fuck – wank – blasphemyFindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – context relevant – no uphold Cross ReferenceDecision No: 2000-137 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A ventriloquist in Strassman, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 18 July 2000 used the word "fuck" and its derivatives when in conversation with his puppet characters. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In particular he said he was offended by the use of the word "fuck", which he said was a macho term which unashamedly denigrated women and instilled an "antisocial and dangerous attitude towards women". As he had received no response from TVNZ, he referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Facelift – character used the words “Jesus” and “Christ” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decencyFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Facelift, a satirical programme which lampooned politicians and other high profile New Zealanders, screened on TV One at 10. 05pm on 19 September 2005. On this occasion, Facelift ridiculed television coverage of the election results two nights earlier. The character playing TV One’s political editor, Mark Sainsbury, used the words “Jesus” and “Christ”. Complaint [2] Brian Stratford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the character had used the words “Jesus” and “Christ” as exclamations. He considered that this was blasphemous and offensive....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on alleged police pack rape of Louise Nicholas – footage shown of former police house where rapes allegedly occurred – current house owner alleged item breached privacy and was unfairFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identification of current owner of house – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – current owner not referred to in item – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item which reported developments following an accusation of rape by Louise Nicholas against three policemen was broadcast on One News on 31 January at 6. 00pm. The item included shots of the former police house where the rapes were alleged to have occurred....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989State of the Nation – televised debate on race relations included expert panel and studio audience – allegedly unbalanced and partial FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – reasonable efforts made to canvass a range of views from both sides in context – impartial – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] State of the Nation was broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 10 June 2004. The two-hour programme was a live panel and studio audience discussion, in which the participants discussed race issues between Māori and Pakeha in New Zealand society. The programme was hosted by Anita McNaught, and co-hosted by Robert Rakete and Kerre Woodham. Complaints [2] Colin Cross complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was unbalanced and partial....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint an item on 1 News reporting on people living in cars breached the accuracy standard. The broadcast included figures of the number of people living in cars in 2017 and 2022, but noted the issue was ‘not easy to quantify’. It also included interviews with community organisations, footage from 2017 electoral debates on the issue, and interviews with the Associate Housing Minister and Leader of the Opposition. The complaint alleged the figures were inaccurate and the broadcast misleadingly suggested Labour Party policy was responsible for the issue. The Authority recognised a lack of data in this area, but found the broadcast was materially accurate and, in any event, relied on reputable sources (being data provided by the Ministry of Social Development)....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item looked at the disputed territory of East Jerusalem – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item discussed a controversial issue of public importance – both sides given adequate opportunity to explain their point of view – broadcaster provided viewers with the significant viewpoints required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – UNICEF representative’s comments were opinion – Mr Kuttner provided his opinion on evictions and explained why barriers and guards were needed – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Kuttner given opportunity to provide his point of view on the issues discussed – dealt with fairly by broadcaster – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made statements regarding the death of convicted murderer Antonie Dixon – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Dixon’s family did not take part in the item and were not referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 8. 42am on Thursday 5 February 2009, the programme’s presenters reported that convicted murderer Antonie Dixon had died in jail. The following exchange took place between the presenters: Host 1: Now in news just to hand, we can confirm that Antonie Dixon is the prisoner who has died at Paremoremo Prison....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Illegal New Zealand – episode looked at the illegal trading of guns in New Zealand – reporter used hidden camera to record footage at a gun show in Auckland – footage included conversation between the undercover reporter and complainant – complainant’s face not pixellated – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues and fairness standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfairly presented complainant in a negative light – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant had no interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues viewpoints) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Illegal New Zealand was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Thursday 9 July 2009....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) Promo for F**k Off I’m Small – use of “F**k Off” in the promo – promo screened during PGR-rated programme – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and programme classification standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – swear word was not said or spelled out – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo should have been rated PGR but was appropriately screened during PGR programme – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the programme F**k Off I’m Small was broadcast on Tuesday 13 November 2007 at 7. 55pm on TV One during Coronation Street. F**k Off I’m Small was advertised as the premiere episode of a documentary series entitled Real Life, which was to screen at 9. 30pm on Wednesday....

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-1299 PDF930. 17 KB Complaint under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News and Late Edition – item about a Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing – complainant gave evidence – name suppressed – complained that she was identifiable from audio of voice and visual of part of her body – item included complainant’s occupation – alleged breach of privacyFindings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable because job description given together with visuals and audio – name suppression order given by court or tribunal not in itself grounds for privacy complaint – name suppression in this case given to all witnesses to ensure that they could continue to function effectively as Board employees – disclosure of B A’s role as witness in these circumstances highly offensive – upheldOrder Compensation to the complainant of $1500 under s....