Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 8/94 Dated the 21st day of February 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by RAPE PREVENTION GROUP of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-011 Dated the 8th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GALA Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-062 Decision No: 1998-063 Dated the 18th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by KRISTIAN HARANG of Auckland and KATE AND DAVID TURNER of Upper Hutt TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Summary Overcrowding in state owned housing was the focus of an item on Holmes broadcast on 27 August 1998 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. The issue had become topical when, the previous day, the Chief Executive of Housing New Zealand had suggested that for some families it was a matter of choice that they lived in overcrowded conditions. Michael Cashin, Chairman of Housing New Zealand, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair and unbalanced because it misrepresented the status of the family shown. In his view it was unfair and inaccurate that the programme portrayed the family as having not being offered any other options and being left to endure overcrowded accommodation. He maintained that TVNZ should have sought a privacy waiver so that Housing New Zealand could respond by discussing the true circumstances of the family shown....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item discussed “all-out war” between the Wellington Mayor and a city councillor – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – use of psychologist trivialised the situation but viewers unlikely to have taken her comments seriously – Mayor given adequate opportunity to comment – not unfair to Ms Prendergast or to the Council – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 16 July 2009, was introduced by the presenter as follows: What on earth is going on at Wellington City Council?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item about Muslim outrage caused by cartoons first published in Denmark depicting the prophet Mohammed – item concluded with satirical depiction of Jesus Christ – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced and unfair in that it encouraged the denigration of ChristiansFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – contrast in attitudes to freedom of speech about religious convictions is controversial issue of public importance – dealt with in balanced way in full item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) and guideline 6g (denigration) – lampooning of Christians did not amount to blackening of reputation – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – news and current affairs not subject to classification system – warning was broadcast – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – warning included before current affairs item – not upheldThis headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion of recent campaign issues which had arisen in regard to forthcoming general election – commentators were a former president of the National Party, a former president of the Labour Party and a political science lecturer – allegedly partisan and unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – most of complaint based on personal preferences – role of minor parties raised issue of broadcasting standards – range of views advanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Agenda broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 10 September 2005 included a panel discussion about campaign issues relating to the general election then due on 17 September. Specific aspects were covered in different segments of the programme....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-146 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaint by ROBERT GREEN of Feilding Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-031 Dated the 26th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GORDON McKAY of Howick Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintWhat Now? PM – decriminalisation of cannabis – information intended for children – pictures of a joint being rolled – unsuitable for childrenFindingsStandard G12 – visuals not consistent with voiceover commentary – unsuitable for children – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary The decriminalisation of cannabis was the subject of an item on What Now? PM broadcast on TV2 on 13 July 2000 at about 5. 00pm. Footage accompanying the item showed a cannabis joint being rolled, and two people sharing a joint. Sharon Wilton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the visual content was unsuitable for inclusion in a programme intended for children. TVNZ explained that the purpose of the item was to inform children of the legislative moves to decriminalise cannabis and the position of MP Nandor Tanczos....

ComplaintWeddings: Happily Ever After? – update on some couples who appeared in Weddings – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – consent form for footage from Weddings – subsequent information freely given – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of Weddings: Happily Ever After? was broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 23 September 2001. The programme reported on the state of the relationships of some of the couples who had appeared on previous episodes of Weddings. [2] Kylie and Simon Bernie, one of the couples, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme had breached standards relating to privacy. Mr and Mrs Bernie maintained that they had not consented to the inclusion of information about them or their baby daughter in the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up promo – contained the word “fugly” to describe the appearance of a film character – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – “fugly” used in a light-hearted and jovial manner – not used as a term of abuse – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A brief promo for Close Up was broadcast at 8. 33am during an episode of Breakfast and again at 3. 07pm during 60 Minute Makeover on Wednesday 7 April 2010. The promo discussed the new Nanny McPhee film starring Emma Thompson. [2] During the promo a voiceover said, “. . . Plus Oscar pro Emma Thompson on having to look fugly for film”, after which Ms Thompson was shown saying, “I really enjoy it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made remarks about his dislike for campervans and the people who use them – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host's comments were personal opinion not points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the programme – campervan owners not a section of the community to which guideline 6g applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Benidorm – showed a man being slapped in the face by two different women – allegedly in breach of law and order, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence was slapstick humour – broadcaster exercised care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for three comedy programmes Bonkers, Benidorm and The Sunshine Girls was broadcast on TV One at 12. 27pm on Thursday 18 October 2007....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion about the use of mobile devices in Parliament – brief interview with Act Party leader Rodney Hide – Mr Hide alleged he was treated unfairly in the preparation of the programme – said the reporter had obtained information through misrepresentation and deception – allegedly unfairFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – alleged unfairness in preparation of programme not reflected in what was broadcast – programme not unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Agenda, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 8 April 2006, discussed the use of mobile devices in Parliament. It noted that Standing Orders did not allow the use of mobile devices and laptops during Question Time....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with woman who was launching a brand of cosmetics made from natural ingredients – contained a number of statements about the chemicals contained in standard cosmetics – allegedly unbalanced FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – presented one woman’s views and experiences – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Close Up, broadcast on TV One at 7pm on 12 October 2010, interviewed a woman who was launching a new “eco-glam” cosmetics brand made from natural ingredients, in New Zealand. The presenter introduced the item as follows: These days we’re bombarded with the organic message and all the costs that go with it....

ComplaintSpin Doctors Election Special – drama – public relations company, satirised while suggesting election campaign strategies – "piss-head" – offensive language – imitation vomit – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – not offensive in context – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for older children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An election special episode of Spin Doctors was broadcast at 9. 00pm on TV One on 10 July 2002. It satirised the staff of a public relations company as they were shown trying to put together election campaign strategies for a number of political parties. [2] Elaine Hadfield complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about some of the language used and the behaviour depicted with reference to the Prime Minister. She said that the Prime Minister deserved respect, not ridicule....

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Grassroots Business – included report from Telecom representative which promoted a Telecom product or service – failed to distinguish between programme and advertising material – Standard 8 and Guideline 8a – TVNZ upheld complaint – TVNZ advised clarity required in any future series – complainant dissatisfied with action taken and referred action taken to Authority – a second complaint that other sponsors’ products and services also not clearly distinguished – not upheld by TVNZ – also referred to AuthorityFindings i) Standard 8 – broadcaster retained editorial responsibility – not upheld ii) Action taken – sufficient in the circumstances – complaint is a reminder to all broadcasters of obligations under Standard 8 – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Grassroots Business was shown on TV One on Saturday mornings at 7....