Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – discussion between commentators about New Zealand’s change in government – one commentator recalled overhearing a conversation at Auckland Airport in which a man told some tourists that the former Prime Minister was a lesbian – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments were intended to be humorous and ironic – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – programme not a news, current affairs or factual programme to which the accuracy standard applied – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments related to an individual, not to a section of the community – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintWeather Forecast – More FM Wellington – reference to approaching storm by announcer – inaccurateFindingsPrinciple 6 – local weather forecast supplemented by telephone calls from listeners not news and current affairs – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] The weather forecasts broadcast on More FM in Wellington between 4. 00–6. 00pm on 25 June 2003 referred to the possibility of hail, thunder and snow. The announcer added that a storm was approaching. [2] Thomas Morgan complained to CanWest Radio NZ Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment about an approaching storm was inaccurate, and that it was not based on a warning issued by Metservice. [3] In response CanWest Radio said that the announcer’s comment was based on information from callers on the South Coast who advised that a storm was on the way. It denied that the forecast was inaccurate....

ComplaintOne News – item about gender income differences – unbalanced – inaccurate – denigration and discrimination of male employers FindingsStandard 4 – range of perspectives presented – no uphold Standard 5 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Standard 6 – not unfair to male employers – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A One News programme, broadcast at 6. 00pm on 20 June 2002, featured an item which sought to explain census figures which showed that women were earning less than their male counterparts. [2] Peter Zohrab, on behalf of the New Zealand Equality Education Foundation, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the news item was unbalanced, inaccurate, and encouraged denigration and discrimination against male employers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported on attempted rescue of surfing students being instructed by the complainant – showed confrontation between the complainant and members of the Piha Surf Lifesaving Club – reporter stated that “the first thing that [the Department of Labour] will find is that he is not even a registered surf instructor” – allegedly inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – accurate to say that complainant was not registered – implication was not that he had acted illegally, but that he had not demonstrated best practice – item contained clear comments from the complainant and from the school that he had not done anything wrong – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item fairly presented complainant’s response – complainant treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Piha Rescue – episodes showed rescues involving unidentified surf schools at Piha – showed confrontation between an unidentifiable surfing instructor and lifeguards when lifeguards attempted to rescue students and instructor resisted – allegedly in breach of fairness and accuracy standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – no surf school was named in 12 March episode and the narrator referred to surf schools in a general way only – Piha surf schools not treated unfairly – the Piha community and surf coaching industry are not “organisations” for the purposes of the fairness standard – 12 March episode not unfair – 19 March episode captured events accurately and fairly and footage not unfairly edited – viewers were left to make up their own minds about the incident – Mr Wallis was not identifiable – Mr Wallis’ perspective was clear from his comments that were included in the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-079:Wardlaw and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-079 PDF438. 69 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-024:Jensen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-024 PDF255. 74 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – incident involving alleged doctor-on-doctor assault – interviewee commented on profession’s reaction to incident – three complaints – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair to doctor and othersFindings Standard 4 (balance) – unbalanced – Mr Ngaei’s viewpoint not advanced – reasonable efforts to obtain his views not made – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Mr Ngaei – upheld Standard 6 (discrimination) – item did not encourage discrimination against doctors – not upheld Orders$1,700 costs to complainant $2,500 costs to CrownThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Holmes broadcast at 7....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenters had several light-hearted discussions about the Pope – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – presenters did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – presenters’ comments distinguishable from points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – programme did not denigrate the Pope or Catholics – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] In an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One at 7am on Tuesday 26 February 2008, the presenters, Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell, and the newsreader, Peter Williams, had a jovial discussion about the current Pope and what he had been doing recently....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Report – item reported on the Australian Government's proposal to legislate for the mandatory blocking of particular websites – contained comment from a representative of the internet civil liberties group Electronic Frontiers Australia – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance to New Zealand – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – interviewee qualified his statements – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast during Radio New Zealand National's Morning Report programme on Tuesday 28 October 2008 reported on the Australian Government’s plan to legislate for the blocking of websites it deemed to be illegal or inappropriate....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 87/95 Dated the 24th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LESLIE GEE of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 158/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LLOYD MINCHINGTON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-103 Decision No: 1996-104 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WELLINGTON PALESTINE GROUP Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-168 Decision No: 1996-169 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR JOHN READ of Auckland and NEW ZEALAND PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY INC. Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-007 Decision No: 1998-008 Decision No: 1998-009 Dated the 12th day of February 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLAN HILL of Wellington and GLADYS GARDNER of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – two days before General Election – item about 83-year-old skin cancer sufferer who had urgent operation cancelled three times – host explained that Minister of Health had refused to come on the show – programme included poll asking who should be next Prime Minister – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – story presented particular example, not a discussion of wider issue – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not identify any inaccuracies – broadcast would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Criminal Minds promo – featured a woman unbuttoning her shirt to reveal her bra – implied she was a prostitute who had been killing her clients – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy, programme classification and children's interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) and Standard 9 (children's interests) – promo contained adult themes – not suitable for child viewers or for broadcast during the news – PGR classification incorrect – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Standard 5 (accuracy) – not a news, current affairs or factual programme – not applicable – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the crime drama Criminal Minds was broadcast on TV One at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...