Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-133:Associate Minister of Health (Hon Maurice Williamson) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-133 PDF1. 02 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-166–167:Bardwell and Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-166, 1993-167 PDF496. 64 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...

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

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-026–027:New Zealand Business Roundtable and Treasury and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-026, 1990-027 PDF3. 73 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-095:Edmunds and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-095 PDF846. 89 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-001:Cook and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-001 PDF301. 93 KB...

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

SummarySome of the children's programmes screened on Channel 2 over a four day periodbetween 25 and 28 June included Sonic the Hedgehog, Captain N, Swat Cats, KingArthur and the Knights of Justice, James Bond Junior and Mighty Morphin PowerRangers. Ms Bannatyne complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that theseprogrammes were unsuitable for children under 8 years of age because they relied onviolence for their main themes and contained inappropriate language. She suggestedthat such programmes offered poor role models for children and were generally of apoor quality with trite, trivial story lines. She requested that they be discontinued. In response, TVNZ advised that none of the programmes was in breach of anybroadcasting standards and, further, that many of them provided entertaining andstimulating viewing for young minds....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 77/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D R CAMPBELL of Papamoa Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-003 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID AITCHISON of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-031 Dated the 10th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER JACKSON of Kaitaia Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-123 Decision No: 1997-124 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by R J A MILLER of Invercargill and L SMITH of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryA no-smacking programme developed by the Children Young Persons and their Families Service was the subject of an item on One Network News broadcast on 24 September 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. It included file footage showing a Pacific Island woman beating a young boy. Ms Elliott complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the segment showing the woman beating the child was entirely at variance with the rest of the item and asked whether its purpose was to reinforce a racist stereotype about Pacific Island people and violence. In her view, the woman and the Pacific Island community were owed an apology. TVNZ responded that because smacking was a common form of discipline in the Pacific Island community, some resistance to the CYPFS campaign was expected from that quarter. In its view, the sequence was not irrelevant in that context....

ComplaintMotorway Patrol – complainant stopped by police – privacy – limited consent – personal facts revealed FindingsPrivacy – Principle vii – consent to broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A motorist driving without a seatbelt was stopped by a police officer on the southern motorway in Auckland. It was found that there appeared to be an outstanding warrant for her arrest. This incident was broadcast on Motorway Patrol on TV2 on 23 May 2000. Parts of the footage were shown in a promo broadcast on several occasions in the days preceding the broadcast. S, the driver, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 4(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that her privacy was breached because private facts about her had been revealed without her permission. In fact, she noted, there had been no outstanding warrant....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player. A doctor from ACC said it may well have been unethical for a doctor to use finance as a barrier to treatment....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item included poll results from a Colmar Brunton survey – allegedly contained inaccurate reference to “sampling error” FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – no reference to “sampling error” or “margin of error” in the item – complaint was based on corresponding website article – Authority does not have jurisdiction to consider print content on the internet – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on Sunday 18 April 2010, an item reported on proposed changes to the current student loans scheme. Following a discussion of tertiary education and fees, a One News political editor analysed results of a recent Colmar Brunton poll....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported one woman’s experience with receiving poor quality healthcare from The Palms Medical Centre in Palmerston North – Health and Disability Commissioner upheld her complaint about the centre – item named and showed footage from a previous item of one of the doctors involved – allegedly in breach of privacy, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – medical centre was told that Kay Shirkey was being interviewed about her experience at The Palms and that the story would be critical of the centre – Dr Saxe was her primary doctor – reporters asked several times to interview someone at the centre – not unfair – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts revealed about Dr Saxe – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on Ms Shirkey’s experience with The Palms – no discussion…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that emails between employees were crucial evidence in the prosecution case of the founder of a failed finance company – six email addresses were shown on screen – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – no identifiable individuals linked to email addresses – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 9 August 2008, reported that “a series of emails between Bridgecorp employees has become crucial evidence in the prosecution case against the finance company’s founder”. Bridgecorp’s former executive directors had allegedly raised millions of dollars from investors knowing that the company was in default....