Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Native Affairs – item discussed the findings of a 2009 Education Review Office report on a Māori immersion school called Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Hoani Waititi – reporter made statements about operation of the school and teachers’ resignations – included footage of a previous interview with the Chair of the school’s Board of Trustees and interviews with a representative from the national body that represents Te Kura Kaupapa Māori and a past principal of the school – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item accurate in relation to the points raised by the complainant – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant and the Kura’s Board given adequate opportunity to respond – item dealt…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-057:Walshe (Hon Consul General of Ireland) and Access Community Radio Inc - 1993-057 PDF697. 24 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-015:New Zealand Police and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-015 PDF2. 1 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-122 Dated the 18th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by G L BROWN of Nelson Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – examined differences in breast cancer treatment in Australia and New Zealand, and the funding of a drug called Herceptin – interviewed an Australian and a New Zealander with similar cancer and compared their prognoses – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – broadcaster failed to present significant viewpoints on the controversial issue within the programme, and within the period of current interest – due to the presentation of the programme and the nature of the issue, the period of current interest limited to a short time after the broadcast – alternative perspectives were not presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements would have misled viewers – upheld OrderSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $3,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Consumer Affairs, Radio Pacific – interview with Steve Crowe – covered a range of aspects of the adult entertainment industry – complainant alleged content was crass and morally reprehensible – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, balance and social responsibility Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – tone of discussion matter of fact – item broadcast at midday – show targeted at an adult audience – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – item did not deal with a controversial issue of public importance – balance requirement did not apply – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – item did not encourage denigration – unlikely that children would have been listening – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Flipside – item reporting on Ahmed Zaoui, an Algerian refugee, having his birthday in a New Zealand prison – allegedly unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – balance provided during period of current interest – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item on Flipside on TV2 at 5pm on 7 December 2004 reported on Ahmed Zaoui, an Algerian refugee, who was having his birthday in a New Zealand prison. Flipside was a news and current interest programme delivered in a style that appealed to a youth audience. [2] The item comprised video showing Mr Zaoui’s supporters holding a “birthday party” outside the prison, comments from his supporters and a studio interview with his lawyer....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on proposed brothel aimed at women – contained interview with owner – promo shown during One News – both item and promo allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, responsible programming, and children’s interestsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – promo and item covered legitimate story – neither broadcast contained visuals of brothels or sex workers – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – focus of promo and item was Ms Corkery – neither contained a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcasts [1] A promo for Close Up was broadcast during an episode of One News on TV One at 6. 25pm on Monday 16 August 2010....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-008:Earlly and Radio Pacific Ltd - 1991-008 PDF578. 13 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-026:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-026 PDF306. 1 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-042 Dated the 17th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P M MACCALLUM of Havelock North Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 156 /95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-099 Decision No: 1996-100 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and IN THE MATTER of complaints by THE NATIONAL COLLECTIVE OF RAPE CRISIS AND RELATED GROUPS OF AOTEAROA INC. and RUBY WOODWARD of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd (CanWest) except for the purpose of orders. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – follow-up to TV3 “special investigation” Let Us Spray– said that Ministry of Health had “finally admitted it tests positive for political contamination” – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Ministry of Health had “finally admitted it tests positive for political contamination” – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to Ministry of Health – not unfair to peer reviewer of study or to ESR – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-175 Decision No: 1996-176 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TEMALOTI FAKAOSI (2) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary Station identification promos broadcast on TV One included the slogan "Together We’re One", and the logo "Celebrating New Zealand". Mr Seymour complained to the broadcaster, Television New Zealand Limited, that the promos encouraged the denigration of Maori and, in particular, discrimination against the legitimate expression of Maori cultural and political beliefs. They promoted, he wrote, an ideology that was inherently assimilationist. TVNZ responded that the reference to "One" was to TV One. The promos implicitly reflected a "one-ness" between TV One and its viewers, and placed that theme in a determinedly bi-cultural context which recognised cultural diversity, it replied. It declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Seymour referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Complaint that Māori Television did not refer to the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence – allegedly in breach of controversial issues standard FindingsMatter of editorial discretion – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act This headnote does not form part of the decision. Complaint [1] Dilip Rupa complained that the current affairs programme Native Affairs, broadcast by Māori Television on 28 October 2009, did not mention that it was the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand. He said that this was not balanced reporting. Broadcaster's Response to the Complainant [2] Māori Television confirmed that it had not broadcast any items referring to the Declaration of Independence on that date. Referral to the Authority [3] Dilip Rupa forwarded his complaint to the Authority for review....