Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 68/94 Dated the 18th day of August 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by EDWARD MALCOLM and OTHERS of Nelson Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-115 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WOMEN AGAINST PORNOGRAPHY (Auckland) Broadcaster MAX TV LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-025 Decision No: 1998-026 Decision No: 1998-027 Dated the 12th day of March 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by A J DICKSON of Tauranga and PHILLIP DUNLOP of Pokeno and ROBIN MCMILLAN of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R M McLeod J Withers...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

ComplaintHolmes – studio discussion about Police Education Child Protection Scheme – bullying tactics – unbalanced – biased FindingsStandards G3, G4 and G6 – interviewee given opportunity to voice concerns – dealt with fairly – issue not dealt with in unbalanced manner – no uphold Standard G13 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A studio discussion on the Holmes programme, broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 14 November 2000, centred around the controversial Police Education Child Protection Scheme. The scheme encouraged schools to teach even their youngest pupils the names of intimate body parts, and aimed to assist children to talk unashamedly about issues such as unwanted touching. W T Lewis complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was "offensive and biased" because the presenter had "verbally bullied" one of the participants in the studio discussion....

SummaryAccording to the complainant, a Radio Pacific talkback host said "Maori is not a culture" between 6. 00 and 8. 00am on 1 September 1999. Stephen Cotterall said that he complained to Radio Pacific, a division of The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment made by the announcer was racially derogatory and insulting to the tangata whenua. As the broadcaster failed to respond to Mr Cotterall’s complaint, he referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. When the matter was referred to The RadioWorks, it advised that it had not received Mr Cotterall’s letter of complaint. Nevertheless, it then proceeded to deal with the complaint. The broadcaster advised that the announcer’s comment was a genuine expression of opinion, and it declined to uphold the complaint. For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – news reader stated that Samoan prison guards had been charged with bringing contraband into Auckland prisons – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration standard FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – news reader’s remark was factual – no invective – did not encourage discrimination against or denigration of Samoans – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an item on 3 News, broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Monday 6 December 2010, the news reader stated: Two Samoan prison guards have been arrested and stood down from their positions after being charged with bringing contraband into two Auckland jails. The men are accused of bringing in drugs, cell phones, cigarettes and food for prisoners at Mt Eden and Auckland Central Remand prisons....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-075:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-075 PDF484. 07 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of Vote 2014 which covered the results of the 2014 general election, used the terms 'jeez', 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus' as exclamations. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the use of these terms was offensive and inappropriate. The Authority has consistently recognised that the colloquial use of variations of 'Jesus' as an exclamation to express irritation, dismay or surprise is increasingly common and widely accepted. The use of the words in this context, during live coverage of an important political event, did not threaten standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During Vote 2014, comprising five hours of live coverage of the results of the 2014 general election, one of the hosts used the terms 'jeez' and 'gee' and apparently 'Jesus'....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-003:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-003 PDF983. 25 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of the Larry Williams Drive Show and a political editor discussed a protest that had taken place in response to the release of the Government’s budget. The host expressed his disapproval of the protestors and made comments about how he thought they should be dealt with, for example saying fire trucks cornering them from either end of the street. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments breached standards. The host was clearly expressing his personal opinion, and the political editor countered the comments, noting people living in a democracy are entitled to protest....

In an episode of Rugby Nation, commentator Tony Johnson made a reference to Israel Folau using the phrase ‘the F word’. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that this breached the discrimination and denigration standard. The complainant argued that the broadcast was harmful to Mr and Mrs Folau. However, as two individuals they are not a recognised section of the community as required by the standard. The discrimination and denigration standard therefore did not apply. The Authority declined to imply the good taste and decency or fairness standards into the complaint on the basis that the original complaint did not raise arguments consistent with an alleged breach of those standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-131:Ellmers and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-131 PDF282. 26 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-171 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-034 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

An application for leave to appeal this decision was refused by the High Court: CIV 2013-485-1234 [2013] NZHC 1386 PDF59....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Ip Man – movie about a martial arts legend, based on historical events, was broadcast in various timeslots during children’s viewing times – contained violence – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 8 (responsible programming) – broadcaster accepted that the movie was incorrectly classified ‘M’ when it should have been AO, and that it should have been broadcast in the AO time-band, not during children’s viewing times – upheld  Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider children’s interests by incorrectly classifying the movie and screening it outside of AO time – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – while there was some violent behaviour it was not excessive and was consistent with expectations of a martial arts film – however inappropriate classification and timeslots meant broadcaster did not exercise…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that a number of cooking and fishing programmes 'perpetuate the exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of 63 million animals. . . per year'. Killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life, and the complaint was based primarily on personal preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about a number of cooking and fishing shows aired on Choice TV. Ms Feral argued that these programmes 'perpetuate the exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of 63 million animals. . . per year'. As examples, Ms Feral referred to footage of live oysters being eaten and catch-and-release fishing, both of which she alleged to be barbaric and cruel....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. The Authority declined to determine the complaint that the interviewee was 'corrupt' and therefore the interview constituted inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting. The complainant has previously made a number of similar complaints which did not raise matters of broadcasting standards, and has been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in the future. Accordingly the Authority considered the complaint to be vexatious. Declined to Determine: Good Taste and Decency, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Mediawatch included an interview with a senior member of New Zealand's media community. [2] Mr Golden argued in essence that as Mediawatch 'implies it takes the behaviour of the news media seriously', the decision to interview someone who is 'corrupt' amounted to inaccurate, unfair and irresponsible broadcasting....