Search

ComplaintStepping Out – Documentary New Zealand – documentary about young urban Maori on hikoi in Far North – use of "fuck" and its derivatives – offensive language FindingsStandard G2 – AO – warning – language used minimally – appropriate in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Documentary New Zealand: Stepping Out was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 9 October 2000. It followed six young urban Maori as they traced on foot a route taken by their ancestor Tohe down the west coast of the Far North. During the documentary, the words "fuck" and its derivatives were used on several occasions. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about the use of such "grossly offensive language"....

ComplaintFair Go – item about pamphlet distributed by complainant – a legal firm – offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in dealing with ACC – failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced and complainant’s response presented inadequately – unfair as the victim’s (Sally) waiver whose story told was incomplete – inaccurate – hearing sought in view of numerous complex legal and factual issues – application declined – disclosure of field tape of interview with "Sally" and assorted correspondence sought Decision on disclosure applicationDeclined This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Background [1] A pamphlet offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in securing compensation from ACC was distributed by the complainant – a legal firm....

ComplaintShortland Street – episodes about a child of drug dealer in coma having taken a capsule of cannabis oil – drug dealer said she gave child small amounts of cannabis oil to calm him as he was ADHD – offensive – encouraged illegal behaviour – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a and Standard 2 – use of cannabis oil to treat ADHD child shown as unacceptable and irresponsible – no uphold Standards 4 and 5 – do not apply to fictional programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The treatment of a child "Max", who had taken a capsule of cannabis oil was a story line in an episode of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 17 July 2002....

ComplaintOne News – interview with golfer Michael Campbell – liquor signage on backdrop – incidental promotion not minimised – upheld by TVNZ – a breach of standard A3 – staff reminded of responsibilities – action insufficient FindingsActon taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Golfer Michael Campbell was interviewed on One News, broadcast on TV One on 16 January 2001, about his participation in the forthcoming New Zealand open golfing championship. The work "Steinlager" was clearly visible on the backdrop behind him. GALA’s Complaints Secretary (Cliff Turner) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the signage breached the standard which required that incidental liquor promotions be minimised. TVNZ upheld the complaint. It acknowledged that a different camera angle could have been used. It advised that sports staff had been fully reminded of their responsibilities under the Promotion of Liquor Code....

ComplaintStrassman – fuck– offensive language FindingsSection 4(1)(a) – consideration of context required as specified in Standard G2 Standard G2 – acceptable in context – no uphold; comment – offensive language in end credits – bordering on the gratuitous This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Strassman broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 19 June 2001 included the word "fuck" as part of the dialogue. Strassman is a comedy series featuring ventriloquist David Strassman. Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language was offensive. In response, TVNZ contended that the language was not unacceptable in context, and declined to uphold the complaint. It pointed out that the Broadcasting Standards Authority had declined to uphold an earlier complaint from Mr Schwabe about such language in Strassman....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – all were dissatisfied with Strata Title Administration Limited and its director Michael Chapman-Smith – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Mr Chapman-Smith had agreed to an interview and then changed his mind – other statements not inaccurate – one aspect upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overall item was fair – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 13 October 2004 examined complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – Tuscany Towers, Ponsonby Crest, Waterford Apartments and Garden Grove....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about NZ Army engineers in Iraq – reference to an article written by the complainant and published in the “Sunday Star-Times” – item’s focus was engineers’ reaction to the article’s claims that their achievements had been exaggerated – complainant alleged that item unfairly represented article, and was inaccurate and unbalancedFindings Standard 4 (balance) – item’s focus was reporting reaction to the article’s claims of exaggerating the achievements of engineers and did not require further balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item inaccurately reported that newspaper article said that the engineers were exaggerating their achievements – not otherwise inaccurate – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – article ambiguous in parts – unfair to complainant to misreport the exaggeration claims as being made by the engineers – not otherwise unfair – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint Private Investigators – complainants’ boat repossessed from their property – no attempt to pixellate them – humiliating – breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy principle (i) – facts disclosed objectionable – no public interest – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement; compensation of $750 to each of the complainants This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The repossession of a boat on which money was owing for the outboard motor was shown in a segment on Private Investigators broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 6 November 2002. Private Investigators is a reality series which shows the range of activities undertaken by private investigators. [2] Mr and Mrs B Radford, the owners of the boat, complained through their solicitors to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached their privacy....

ComplaintSome of my best friends are … Muslims – Muslims, Christians and "zsh" described favourably as religions – "zsh" apparently "Jewish" but allegedly censored – excision breached standards of balance, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4; Standard 5; Standard 6 – no evidence of any censorship in programme designed to promote tolerance – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The comments made by a Muslim woman were indistinct when she was promoting understanding between Muslims, Christians and a third religious group – possibly Jews. The incident occurred in the programme, Some of my best friends are… which looks at minority groups in New Zealand. Muslims was the group featured in the programme broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 29 March 2003....

ComplaintEdwards at Large – interview with complainant – host a media adviser to Prime Minister – programme funded by NZ On Air of which host’s wife was a board member – questions about these issues raised in Parliament by complainant – complainant alleged the item unbalanced and partial – broadcaster upheld complaint that programme was partial – written apology – complainant dissatisfied with both extent of complaint upheld and action taken FindingsStandard 4 – balanced debate – no uphold Action taken – letter included TVNZ’s Chief Executive’s explanation – sufficient – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Mr Hide MP was interviewed on Edwards at Large about some questions he had asked in Parliament concerning the funding of the programme and the linkages between the host, Dr Brian Edwards, his wife Judy Callingham, the Labour Party, and NZ On Air....

ComplaintThe Sopranos – scene in which child says "Fuck you, Santa! " – not socially responsible – bad taste FindingsStandard G2 – context – no uphold Cross Reference: Decision No. 2000-104 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An episode of The Sopranos was broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on 4 October 2001. The Sopranos is a drama about an American-Italian mafia family living in the eastern United States. [2] Phillip Smits complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about a scene in which a child says "Fuck you, Santa! ". He considered that it was an "outrage" that "the programme makers would allow a child to say something like that" and socially irresponsible of TVNZ to allow the broadcast. [3] TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about Tauranga surgeon Dr Ian Breeze found guilty of professional misconduct – item described bowel operation which resulted in death of patient as “botched” – patient’s wife interviewed – relatives of other patients interviewed – allegedly breached good taste and decency – allegedly inaccurate, unfair, unbalancedFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – “botched” is vernacular – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – matters raised by complainant not required for balance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – not inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – matters raised by complainant not required for fairness – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Tauranga surgeon Ian Breeze was the subject of an item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 2 December 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Billy Connolly’s World Tour of New Zealand – repeated use of the word “fuck” by comedian – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency standardsFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – language not unexpected – contextual factors – clear warning given – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Billy Connolly’s World Tour of New Zealand was broadcast on TV One at 9. 40pm on 3 April 2005. The programme followed the well-known Scottish comedian around New Zealand, and included extracts from his live stage appearances. Complaint [2] W A Crouch made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, in respect of the comedian’s repeated use of the word “fuck”....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coronation Street – scene contained two female characters kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and controversial issues standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – kissing scene was brief and innocuous – not made less acceptable by the fact the kiss was between two women – content was consistent with the programme’s G rating and not unsuitable for children – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme was correctly rated G and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes – Coronation Street was a fictional drama – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – reported on case of Sean Davison who faced charges for assisting his mother’s suicide – Mr Davison was shown in court and the complainant in his capacity as a Corrections Officer was briefly visible as he walked behind Mr Davison in the dock – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – footage of complainant was extremely brief – information disclosed did not create an unfair impression of the complainant or cause damage to his reputation or dignity – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – standard does not apply to individuals – nothing in the item encouraged discrimination or denigration against any section of the community – not upheld This headnote does…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – satirical item featuring comedian Leigh Hart reviewing the election campaign the night before the general election was to be held – Mr Hart used a whiteboard which occasionally displayed the name of then Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff – allegedly in breach of controversial issues and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a light-hearted review of the election campaign – it did not purport to be a serious or balanced discussion of a controversial issue – appearance and disappearance of Mr Goff’s name on the whiteboard did not require the presentation of alternative viewpoints – in any case the item discussed a number of politicians and included comment from them – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify who he thought had been treated unfairly – individuals taking part or referred to in the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Police Ten 7 – police interviewed a man with cerebral palsy, Bradley, who was the victim of an alleged assault and robbery – police detective allegedly told Bradley that the filming was for Police Ten 7 but no further explanation was given – made comments that questioned the veracity of Bradley’s story and showed footage of his high-heeled shoes – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Bradley was not fully informed of the nature of the programme and his participation and there was insufficient public interest to justify the broadcast of the footage (guideline 6c) – Bradley treated unfairly – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – Bradley was identifiable but no private facts were disclosed and filming was in a public place – Bradley was not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – reality series following lifeguards at Piha Beach – question whether the Authority has jurisdiction to accept the complaint FindingsMr Wallis’ original email was not a valid “formal complaint” – TVNZ responded appropriately to Mr Wallis – Authority does not have jurisdiction to accept referral on the basis that TVNZ did not respond to his “formal complaint” under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Piha Rescue, a reality series following the work of lifeguards at Piha Beach, was broadcast on 16 January 2012 on TV One. [2] Phil Wallis emailed TVNZ’s “Viewer Correspondence” email address on 3 February 2012 expressing concerns about “Episode 1 from series 8” of the programme....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Dog Squad – Dog Squad carried out routine checks of vehicles entering prison grounds – searched complainant’s car and stated that “there was something in the car, or drugs had been used in the car” and “We are going to confiscate that, okay? ” – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable – footage disclosed private facts – disclosure highly offensive – upheld Order Section 13(1)(d) – $750 compensation to complainant for breach of privacy This headnote does not form part of the decision.  ...