Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-151–155:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-151–155 PDF1. 22 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-041:Curran and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-041 PDF485. 61 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 133/94 Dated the 15th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P HEATHER COSH of Taumarunui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-117 Decision No: 1997-118 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MICHELLE MCBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-110 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALAN MOIR of Dunedin TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryThe word "Poms" was used on Breakfast broadcast on TV One on 23 December 1998 at 7. 00am in reference to the English cricket team which was touring Australia. Mr and Mrs Whitmore complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the word "pom" was without doubt racial discrimination. They asserted that no other race was belittled in the same way, and noted that the remark was often used in association with a report of a losing sporting performance. TVNZ responded that in its view the word did not carry the offensive connotations which the complainants attached to it. It was, TVNZ argued, a term used affectionately by residents of New Zealand and Australia. It noted that the issue had already been before the Authority which had concluded that the term did not breach broadcasting standards. It declined to uphold the complaint....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging it was unbalanced to include coverage of some New Year Honours award recipients and not others. As this complaint relates to a matter of editorial discretion and personal preference, it is not capable of being determined by this complaints procedure and had little connection to the standard raised. The Authority considered that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. Declined to Determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-018 Dated the 6th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUE WHITE of Lake Hawea Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 34/95 Dated the 18th day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOANNE DACZO of Pirongia Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 157/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C A MAUDE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

SummaryLight-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7. 30–8. 00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology. Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Summary A news item on Midday reported on increasing lawlessness and the use of vigilante justice amongst black communities in South Africa. It focussed on a group of vigilantes avenging the alleged pack rape of a young woman, and included footage of the accused men being beaten by the woman and some vigilantes. The item was broadcast on TV One on 29 April 1999, and repeated in One Network News at 6. 00 pm. Mrs Ripley complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that graphic footage of defenceless people being beaten and kicked, preceded only by what she said was a "quiet warning from the news-reader", should only be shown in the late news, if at all. Such violent scenes should not be shown at a time when children and young teenagers were able to watch, she wrote....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Our Land – included footage of a disagreement between two men after one had hit the other’s child for being naughty – the men and their families shown discussing the incident – both men shown re-enacting how the child was hit – allegedly in breach of the law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – violent behaviour portrayed as unacceptable and anti-social – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Our Land was broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on Sunday 3 January 2010. The programme followed three families trying to live the lives of Māori and European settlers in the 1800s....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – presenter introduced item coming up after advertisement break – included footage from episode of Underbelly – showed a balaclava-clad man shooting at man sitting in a car – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, fairness, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989What Now? – “Grossology” episode – presenters discussed people who pick their noses and eat it and don’t share it with others – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – typical children’s humour – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of the children’s programme What Now? , broadcast on TV2 from 8am to 10am on Sunday 11 November 2007, was entitled the “Grossology” episode. It featured “heaps of gross things. . . disgusting things. . . like bogies. . . and bodily functions”. [2] During the episode, What Now? presenter Charlie talked to a character “Chuck Chunks” about how to get back at another presenter for playing gross practical jokes on him....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item examined crash of Silkair 737 in which all passengers and crew were killed – official investigation said cause unknown – decision widely criticised – view expressed by father of co-pilot that pilot deliberately crashed the plane – other comments in support – father’s theory examined fully – item advised that Indonesian Government reopened investigation and then decided not to proceed – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item omitted credible alternative theory – upheldNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The crash of a Silkair 737 in Indonesia in 1998 was reviewed from the perspective of the father (Derek Ward) of the New Zealand co-pilot, who died in the crash, in an item broadcast on Sunday on TV One at 7. 30pm on 20 June 2004....

ComplaintOne News – Item on electricity pricing to large irrigation customers – aspects confusing and inaccurate FindingsStandard 5 – inaccurate – uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] "Some farmers could see their bills rise more than a thousand percent" was a comment made in the introduction to an item about electricity price rises for large irrigation users in Canterbury. The item was included in One News broadcast on TV One between 6. 00–7. 00pm on Sunday 29 September 2002. [2] Orion New Zealand Ltd, through its General Manager, Commercial (Roger Sutton) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment, among others, was inaccurate. The actual price increase in electricity charges, it said, was about 25%....

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....