Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 7/94 Dated the 21st day of February 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by BUSINESS INNOVATION GROUP of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about person who agreed to sell a rural home before the Manawatu floods – reported that after the floods the home was condemned and vendor and purchaser cancelled the contract – complainant trading as RE/MAX Associates continued to claim agency fee – item questioned morality of real estate company’s claim and reported that the fee was later remitted – allegedly unbalanced, unfair and inaccurateFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to complainant not to obtain his response – upheld Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – balance subsumed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – in the interest of fairness, disputed issues would have clarified if been put to complainant for comment – essence of complaint dealt with under fairness – not upheldOrder Broadcast of statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

ComplaintHolmes – coverage of rally driver Possum Bourne’s funeral service – tribute by eight-year-old son – breach of child’s privacy FindingsStandard 3 and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of child considered by broadcaster – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Coverage of rally driver Possum Bourne’s funeral service was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 6 May 2003. The item included the tribute made by his eight-year-old son, Taylor Bourne. [2] Kevin Nicol complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, that the item, broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd, breached the child’s privacy....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-095:Edmunds and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-095 PDF846. 89 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item about the employment of disabled person – employer told of physical disability only – employee had mental health disability as well – disruption of staff – employer believed that she should have been told of mental health disability – allegedly discriminated against mentally disabledFindings Standard 6 and Guideline 6g (discrimination) – item focused on specific employee and presenter’s comment on specific employer – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The disruption caused by an employee with a mental health disability was recounted by a Nelson hairdresser in an item on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 June 2004....

ComplaintHolmes – offensive language – presenter said "bugger the international media" – America’s Cup context FindingsStandard G2 – "bugger" not acceptable for common usage, but acceptable in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During an item about the America’s Cup on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 21 February 2000, the presenter said "bugger the international media". Paul Schwabe complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the word "bugger" breached broadcasting standards which require the observance of good taste and decency. TVNZ responded that, in the context of a highly charged America’s Cup campaign, the use of the word "bugger" did not breach broadcasting standards. It did not accept that its use carried the suggestion that the word was now acceptable for common usage. It declined to uphold the complaint....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-151 Decision No: 1997-152 Dated the 20th day of November 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by W G FABER of Gore and C B NOBLE of Wanganui Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-042:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-042 PDF365. 34 KB...

Complaints under section 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Holmes – two items about allegations of sexual abuse against former church worker – described in second item as “sexual monster” – named and photographs shown – alleged breach of privacy – second item included recent footage of church worker allegedly taken without permissionFindings Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principles (i), and (iv) – disclosure was a breach of privacy principle (i) but justified in the public interest – not upheld Standard 3 (Privacy) and Guideline 3a – Privacy Principles (iii) – footage of man taken from public place – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Allegations of sexual abuse by the former supervisor at an orphanage run by the Presbyterian Church in the 1970s were made in items on Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 12/94 Dated the 5th day of April 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHARLES B. HARPER of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary District Court Judge Martin Beattie was acquitted on 1 August 1997 on a number of dishonesty charges after a jury trial. It was a high-profile case. On 27 July 1998, a news item revealed the contents of a High Court ruling made before the trial in which the judge had ruled inadmissible a report prepared by a QC at the request of the Chief District Court Judge in the early stages of the investigation. The item reported that the judgment disclosed the QC’s opinion that Judge Beattie was guilty of fraud. Mr Clayton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the QC’s opinion about the judge’s behaviour was "utterly irrelevant", and the disclosure not only breached broadcasting standards, but also invaded Judge Beattie’s privacy....

SummaryThe New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd was the subject of items on Holmes broadcast at 7. 00pm on 15 and 16 December 1998. The item on the 15th suggested that some students had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the school’s programme. It also included an interview with Ms Marilyn Hudson, the School’s Managing Director. The item on the 16th included comments from other dissatisfied past and present students and their families, and an interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about both items. She said that the first item contained inaccuracies, and was unbalanced, misleading and unfair both to her and the School. The second item, Ms Hudson complained, also contained some inaccuracies, and again was unbalanced, misleading and unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – interview with central figure in reality television show There’s Something About Miriam – discussed her transsexual status and contact with contestants on show – allegedly breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests FindingsPrinciple 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – nothing indecent or distasteful to the extent of breaching standard – interview conducted appropriately given subject matter – not upheld Principle 7 (programme classification) – programme news or current affairs – not classified – was sufficiently mindful of the possibility of child viewers – no warning required as contents adequately signposted – not upheld Principle 9 (children’s interests) – news and current affairs programme not directed at children – interview conducted appropriately – sufficiently mindful of children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – light-hearted commentary on a TV3 presenter’s telephone call to Wellington High Court about Justice Ron Young who was hearing TV3’s appeal against some decisions of the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Holmes presenter (Paul Holmes) said that TV3’s presenter (John Campbell) had been getting it “up the chutney” at the appeal hearing – allegedly offensiveFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldObservation When complaint referred to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) in which there is doubt whether broadcaster has had the opportunity to investigate the complaint, the Authority will clarify processes with the broadcaster before formal action initiatedThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – air accident – advice for travellers to dress as for a bonfire – offensive – sensational – distasteful FindingsStandard G14 – not applicable Standard G16 – perhaps flippant comments but would not cause alarm Standard G20 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 3 November 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm, gave advice to travellers about how to improve their chances of surviving an aircraft disaster. The item followed an aircraft accident in Taipei. R P Worthington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the subject matter had been handled in a distasteful manner, and was inflammatory and biased. In the complainant’s view, the way in which the item had been written was particularly offensive....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-083:Jones and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-083 PDF2. 47 MB...

ComplaintHolmes – lifting of moratorium on commercial release of genetically modified organisms – studio debate – “Trust and Country Image” report discussed – complainant maintained he accurately quoted report – presenter allegedly misrepresented report – presenter allegedly unfairly criticised complainant Findings Standard 5 – presenter’s introductory statement on report inaccurate – upheld Standard 5 – presenter’s criticism a question of fairness, not accuracy – issue considered under Standard 6 Standard 6 – presenter’s vehement interjection amounted to accusation of deliberate misrepresentation – content, manner and tone of interjection an unfair overreaction – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item broadcast on Holmes on TV One on 23 October 2003 dealt with the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – studio discussion between presenter Paul Holmes, Pastor Brian Tamaki from the Destiny Church and Georgina Beyer MP – reaction to the street march in which Destiny Church members protested against the proposed Civil Union Bill – allegedly inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 5 (accuracy) – nothing inaccurate in item – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item fair to all parties involved – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Holmes on TV One on 24 August 2004 at 7pm included a studio discussion involving the presenter, Pastor Brian Tamaki from the Destiny Church and Georgina Beyer MP. [2] The discussion concerned the street march through Wellington the previous day in which Destiny Church members protested against the proposed Civil Union Bill....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on art piece commissioned for Venice Biennale at cost of $500,000 in public money – interview with Peter Biggs of Creative New Zealand – allegedly unfair to Mr Biggs and misleading/inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – not unbalanced – Mr Biggs was able to present his view – not upheld Standard 5 – item did not suggest that braying toilet was the work to be exhibited – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – Mr Biggs not treated unfairly – as a seasoned media commentator he was able to get his point across – not upheld Standard 8 – not relevant – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....