Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News Now – item contained footage of teenage girl beating another and two girls fighting – item was not preceded by a warning – broadcaster upheld the complaint under responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming), Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Standard 10 (violence) – item carried a high level of public interest and would have been acceptable for broadcast if preceded by a warning – TVNZ correct to uphold the complaint but action taken was sufficient in the circumstances – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During TVNZ News Now, broadcast on TVNZ 7 at 8am on Sunday 27 March 2011, the news reader introduced a story, saying: There’s serious concern from schools about the rise in physical violence among teenage girls....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promos for Nothing Trivial – broadcast during Emmerdale – contained comments, “one guy who’s in serious need of a root” and, “when your husband can’t keep his dick in his pants” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Emmerdale aimed at adult audience – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests by broadcasting the promo during Emmerdale – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] Two promos for Nothing Trivial, a drama following the personal lives of members of a pub quiz team, were broadcast on 1 and 5 July 2011 on TV One between 12. 30pm and 1. 30pm, during Emmerdale which was rated PGR....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Intrepid Journeys – dancing champion Brendon Cole visited Vanuatu – locals told him how to kill a chicken using a slingshot – he could not manage to hit it and eventually killed it with his hands – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – programme showed daily reality of a different culture and way of life – was clear that Mr Cole was upset about killing the chicken so viewers were not encouraged by the programme to kill animals in that manner – footage was not gratuitous in context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme was correctly rated PGR – scene was signposted so parents could exercise discretion with regard to their children’s viewing – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – footage did not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Inspectors – Environmental Health Officer carried out routine spot check at fish and chip shop in Dunedin – made adverse comments about the state of the premises and delivered a food certificate downgrade from a ‘B’ to a ‘D’ – showed footage of business and of the shop owner with his face pixelated – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – shop owner had an interest in seclusion in the back part of his shop – camera crew’s actions amounted to an intrusion in the nature of prying because any consent given was not informed and did not extend to the broadcast of the footage three years after filming – intrusion highly offensive – there was a high level of public interest in the footage at the time of filming but not three years later –…...

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…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A One News item reported on controversy surrounding a performance by female artist Miley Cyrus at the ‘2013 MTV Video Music Awards’ where she engaged in a provocative dance called ‘twerking’ while wearing a nude-coloured PVC bikini. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the footage was offensive to broadcast during prime time family viewing. The footage was provocative and challenging, but was relevant as it illustrated for viewers why the performance had attracted worldwide publicity. Earlier coverage and the presenter’s introduction signposted the likely content and gave viewers an opportunity to exercise discretion. The item did not threaten standards of good taste and decency in the context of an unclassified news programme targeted at adults....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-004:Hamilton and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-004 PDF736. 19 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-085:National Collective of Independent Women's Refuges Inc and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-085 PDF502. 9 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-139:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-139 PDF295. 26 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-175:Leitch and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-175 PDF576. 5 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-077:Wells and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-077 PDF301. 25 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 60/94 Dated the 1st day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by GRAHAM and JENNY JACOBSEN of Putaruru Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Loates...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 94/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R J ENGLAND of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-167 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by FRIENDS OF THE EARTH (NEW ZEALAND) 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 The film Primal Fear was broadcast on TV2 at 8. 30pm on 11 July 1999. It concerned the trial of a young man accused of the murder of a Roman Catholic archbishop. Aaron Authier complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the film was an attack on Christianity. He said he objected to the blasphemous language used and the manner in which Catholic clergy had been represented in the film. In his view, it should have been preceded with a warning about its content. TVNZ responded by noting that the film was classified as AO and was screened during AO time. Furthermore, it was preceded by a warning which emphasised that it was intended for adult audiences. To the complaint that the film discriminated against Catholics and misrepresented the clergy, TVNZ responded by reminding the complainant that the film was a work of fiction....

Complaint60 Minutes – item on Ritalin – offensive – irresponsible – failed to respect principles of law – likely to place children at riskFindings(1) Standard G5 – no disrespect for law evidenced – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – public interest – current affairs – audience expectations unlikely to have been exceeded – no uphold (3) Standard G12 – not relevant – no uphold (4) Standard G16 – public interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on the black market for the prescription drug Ritalin was broadcast on 60 Minutes on TV One on 11 June 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. On behalf of ADHD. org....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two items about the disappearance of a six-year-old boy who had allegedly been kidnapped by his maternal grandfather – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – balance standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies in either item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – 5 December broadcast not unfair to mother of six-year-old boy – complainant did not specify any person in the 20 December broadcast who was treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....