Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 18/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CLIFF TURNER of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 63/95 Dated the 20th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GARY MABEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-023 Decision No: 1996-024 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CHRISTIAN HERITAGE PARTY and MICHAEL GIBSON 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: 1996-137 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JAMES HIPPOLITE 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: 1998-111 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by STEVE BISHOP of Albany TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An item on Holmes featured the Alpha Club which, it reported, represented itself as a travel club. The item suggested the club was involved in pyramid selling activities, and included amateur footage of a club meeting, a woman encouraging another person to join the club, and interviews with people who had attended meetings. An Auckland barrister expressed an opinion that he was in "no doubt" that the activities amounted to pyramid selling. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 May 1999, commencing at 7. 00 pm. Mr Price complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was inaccurate, unbalanced, biased and misleading, and that he had suffered financial loss as a result. TVNZ responded that the barrister interviewed was a recognised expert in the field of consumer law....

ComplaintOne News – violence on the West Bank – Israeli forces described as Israeli Security Forces – use of word security serves to legitimise occupation by Israel of the Occupied Territories – compromise said to be necessary for peace omits requirement on Israel to comply with UN resolutions – Jerusalem described as the capital of Israel FindingsStandard G14 – Israeli security forces as a description not inaccurate – no uphold – the need for compromise an acceptable acknowledgment of reality – no uphold – description of Jerusalem as capital of Israel – not accurate – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Events in the Middle East, including violence on the West Bank and the forthcoming election in Israel, were dealt with in items broadcast on One News on TV One at 6. 00pm on 27 January and 9 February 2001....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2010-404-004893 PDF1....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on man who had been stabbed in the upper thigh by a stingray barb – complainant alleged that man’s testicles were visible as he showed the camera his wound – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – complainant mistaken – man’s testicles not visible – 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 25 October 2007, reported on a fisherman who had been stabbed in the upper thigh by a stingray barb. The item included an interview with the man in hospital, during which his wound was shown to the camera. The man’s underpants were partially visible underneath his gown....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters’ visit to Washington DC – questioned Mr Peters’ interruption of American senator during interview – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – media agreement with Mr Peters not controversial issue of public importance – journalists’ perspective not required – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of interview not edited in the way alleged by complainant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Goober Brothers – part of Studio 2 – inventors of “Ja-Handal” – man performing handstands – dog urinated on man’s face – allegedly offensive and not in children’s interestsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – type of humour depicted appeals to children – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Goober Brothers was shown as part of the children’s programme Studio 2. It was a New Zealand-made series of two-minute items featuring mad scientists who come up with weird inventions. The “Ja-Handal”, a jandal for hands, was the invention shown on the episode broadcast on TV2 at 3. 20pm on 16 April 2004....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-078:Miller and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-078 PDF659. 74 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-135–137:Long, Stanley and Singe and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-135, 1993-136, 1993-137 PDF1. 87 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-100:Wardlaw and Television New Zealand - 1992-100 PDF477 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

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 complaint about the use of the term ‘holiday highway’ during a 1 News item, to refer to the road between Puhoi and Warkworth, was not upheld. The complainant submitted the term ‘holiday highway’ was ‘Labour Party propaganda’, and that its use minimises the seriousness of the road toll in that area and denigrates people who live in North Auckland or Northland. The Authority noted the term has been widely used in the media for a number of years to refer to the road, including prior to the recent General Election, and found it was not used with the malice or condemnation required to constitute a breach of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration The broadcast[1] An item on 1 News reported on newly announced Government funding for road infrastructure....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that two answers provided during Mastermind New Zealand, about historical New Zealand events, were inaccurate and unbalanced. The Authority noted that both questions appeared to have been answered accurately by the contestant. Viewers were unlikely to be left misled or misinformed by the omission of further context around these answers, particularly given the well-known quiz format of the programme. The programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance, given historical events were raised only briefly in the form of quiz questions, and the requirements of the balance standard therefore did not apply.   Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the usage of the word ‘root’ in a Seven Sharp item breached the good taste and decency and children’s interests standards. The Authority took into account the relevant contextual factors including the nature of the discussion, the nature of the programme and the audience expectations of the programme. The Authority did not consider that the use of the word threatened community norms of good taste and decency, or that any potential harm justified restricting the right to freedom of expression. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests...