Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – interview with medical researcher about the effectiveness of treatment by chiropractors – allegedly inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – programme presented researcher as authoritative – he made a number of inaccurate statements – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6. 30am and 9am on 9 March 2009, one of the presenters interviewed a medical researcher, Dr Shaun Holt, about the effectiveness of chiropractors. Dr Holt said that chiropractors were “as good as conventional medicine” for treating back pain, although conventional medicine was not particularly effective because back pain was very hard to treat. He said “by all means see a chiropractor, they may well help,” but that many claimed to treat other medical conditions and research showed that chiropractic was not beneficial for those conditions....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Real Crime: Interview with a Serial Killer – contained part of an interview with a serial killer who stated that he had snapped a woman’s neck – allegedly in breach of children’s interests FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – promo contained adult themes which would have disturbed and alarmed child viewers – promo incorrectly classified G – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld OrderSection 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the programme Real Crime: Interview with a Serial Killer was broadcast at 5. 25pm on Wednesday 16 September 2009. It was shown in the G (General) timeband, directly after a One News update and just prior to a G-rated programme, Australian MasterChef....

ComplaintOne News – item about Olympic flame runner being accosted by spectator – offensive language – ballsed-upFindingsStandard G2 – not offensive in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the Decision. Summary A news item broadcast on One News on 11 September 2000 between 6. 00–7. 00pm showed an athlete who was running with the Olympic torch being accosted by a spectator who was attempting to snatch the torch. The runner, when interviewed, said about the man that he had "really ballsed it up". Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the phrase "balls-up" was "gutter language" which was plainly indecent and should not be broadcast. TVNZ responded to the complaint by noting that it raised two questions....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item discussing copyright in photos – featured a woman who believed a photo she took had been posted on the internet as belonging to someone else – stated that American photographer claimed to have taken the photo – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was misleading in conveying that the woman owned the photo and that Mr Bush had “stolen” it and was claiming it as his own – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair in implying that the complainant did not own the photo – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant sufficiently identifiable from website details – but website and photo in the public domain – no private facts disclosed – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld OrdersSection 16(4) – costs to the Crown $1,000 This…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-087 Dated the 6th day of August 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL SHAND of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary An item in Crimescene broadcast on TV2 on 7 July 1998 between 7. 30–8. 00pm focussed on a case where a man had assumed the identity of a dead child to defraud the student loan scheme. Photographs of a number of people who had been involved in fraudulent schemes in the past accompanied the item. T, whose picture was featured, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his privacy was breached. He pointed out that he had already been convicted, had served his sentence and deserved the right to begin his life afresh. He maintained that his case had no relevance to the item. In its response to the Authority, Television New Zealand Ltd submitted that Mr T’s conviction occurred last year in the context of a high-profile fraud case, for which others were still serving sentences....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-110 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN CLEMENTS of Orewa Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-082 Dated the 26th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by K McILROY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary The INCIS police contract cancellation by IBM was the subject of a talkback/voteline segment on Good Morning, broadcast on TV One between 10. 00am and 12. 00pm on 11 August 1999. Mr McLean complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that there had been a lack of balance in the treatment of the issue in both a trailer for Good Morning, and in the programme itself. TVNZ upheld part of the complaint. It acknowledged that the treatment of the issue on the programme was unbalanced because it had not included an alternative view to that of the presenter. It advised that it had reviewed Good Morning’s approach to political issues as a consequence. Mr McLean contended that TVNZ’s action in response to the upheld complaint was inadequate. In his view, TVNZ should have broadcast a statement about its standards breach....

Summary Good Morning referred to the Alliance Party’s proposal to introduce higher taxes. The presenter asked "Should the rich be taxed more? ", and invited viewers to telephone or fax their responses for inclusion in the programme’s Voteline. Responses were provided to viewers in a graph format, and through the presenter’s comments during the course of the programme, which was broadcast on TV One on 29 September 1999, from 10. 00–12. 00 noon. Mr Wakeman complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the programme’s focus on tax rates was not balanced. He had attempted to participate in the poll, he said, and the broadcaster had advised it would contact him for his view but had failed to do so. He questioned the number of responses received, and also the presenter’s comment at one particular time that the poll was showing a lack of support for tax increases....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 97/94 Dated the 6th day of October 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PATRICIA R WAUGH of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about fathers frustrated with the Family Court system – included interview with father who had been involved in custody dispute – identified his eight-year-old daughter – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, in breach of daughter’s privacy and children’s interests Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – highly offensive disclosure of private facts about child – not in child’s best interests – no public interest in disclosing facts – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster presented significant viewpoints on controversial issue under discussion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and guideline 9i – child unnecessarily identified and exploited – upheldOrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementSection 13(1)(d) – payment to JB for breach of privacy $500 Section 16(1) – payment of costs to the complainant of $3,000 Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,500 This headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coke Countdown – Top 40 music video clips – allegedly sexually explicit and in breach of good taste and decency, fairness and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – denigration requires a high threshold – no denigration of women – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interest of child viewers – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Coke Countdown was broadcast on TV2 on Sunday 8 May 2005 from 10am to 12 noon. [2] The programme was a Top 40 show, featuring the most popular hit songs of the week. The fourth spot in the line up featured the song “Candy Shop” by hip hop artist 50 Cent, and featured female vocalist Olivia....

ComplaintHolmes – apology from Mr Holmes for comments he made about UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Newstalk ZB – apology said to be unbalanced, inaccurate and breached requirements for law and order Findings Standard 2 – not applicable – decline to determine Standard 4 – personal statement – balance not an issue – decline to determine Standard 5 – no inaccuracy – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Paul Holmes, the host of Holmes broadcast on TV One on weekdays at 7. 00pm, made a personal statement on Holmes on 29 September 2003 about some comments he had made on Newstalk ZB. Among some other comments made on Newstalk ZB, he had described the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, as a “cheeky darkie”. His comments had received extensive media coverage....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – carried out testing on imported and locally produced olive oil – stated that sensory panel was “IOC accredited” and its supervisor was “the only person qualified by the IOC… to convene a sensory panel” – reported that all European imports failed sensory test and two failed chemical test – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – references to IOC accreditation were inaccurate and gave greater status to the testing than was justified – broadcaster was put on notice that the testing was not “IOC accredited” but nevertheless made statements of fact to that effect – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – notwithstanding finding one aspect of the programme was inaccurate, complainant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and mitigate any resulting unfairness, and its response was adequately presented – not upheld No Order This headnote does…...

Complaint Promo for film American Beauty – wrongly classified – explicit sexual content at 7. 30pm – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – context - extreme brevity – no upholdStandard 7 – not explicit – classification appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the film American Beauty, to be shown at 8. 30pm that evening, was screened on TV2 at about 7. 30pm on Sunday 10 November 2002. Among the scenes in the promo was one of a couple engaged in sexual intercourse. [2] Dr Exton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the depiction of explicit sexual behaviour, at a time when children were the target audience, breached the standards. [3] In response, TVNZ said the scene was brief and non-explicit and not inappropriate during the PGR time-band. It declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintPromo – The Mind of the Married Man – references to anal sex – offensive language FindingsStandard 1 and guideline 1a – context – borderline – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of The Mind of the Married Man was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 55pm on 13 February 2002. In a part of the episode during which a married couple argued about the state of their marriage, there was reference by the wife to anal sex, using terms such as "arse-fuck", "fuck me in the arse" and "deep in my arse". [2] Kerry Carter complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the dialogue, which she considered "lewd and offensive" and "only fit for a porn video". [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintTV One – coverage of Olympic Games opening ceremony advertised as being live – untruthful and inaccurate FindingsStandard G1 – implication perhaps misleading – no incorrect facts broadcast – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The Olympic Games Opening Ceremony was broadcast on TV One on the evening of 14 September 2000. Advertising breaks were included during the programme. Bryan Bluck complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the extensive advertising prior to the opening of the Olympic Games implied that the broadcast would be live. In fact, he said, after the first advertising break, it was a delayed telecast. He emphasised that his complaint was not that the programme contained advertising, but that the promotions had implied it would be a direct broadcast rather than a delayed one....

ComplaintMessiah 2: Vengeance is Mine – promo – programme to be broadcast at 8. 30pm – promo screened during Holmes before 7. 30pm – graphic – inappropriate time slot FindingsStandard 7 – classification appropriate – no uphold Standard 10 – appropriate discretion exercised regarding violence – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for Messiah 2: Vengeance is Mine was broadcast on TV One at 7. 20pm on Friday 11 July 2003 during Holmes. The programme Messiah 2, rated AO, was to be screened at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 July. [2] Annette Ward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the graphic and disturbing promo had been broadcast at an inappropriate time. [3] In response, TVNZ said that the promo contained no explicit violence and did not include the scenes which had justified the film’s AO rating....