Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-019:Seymour and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-019 PDF1015. 04 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-085–087:Church of Scientology of New Zealand, Frater and Kershaw and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-085, 1993-086, 1993-087 PDF2. 08 MB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – four items reporting special investigation into Ministry of Social Development’s “Community Max” projects questioned how millions of dollars had been spent – reporter visited sites of six projects – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – items discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view on the issue within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – very small number of minor points had the potential to be misleading – however in the context of four items which legitimately questioned government spending upholding the complaint would unreasonably restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – MSD should expect that as a government Ministry it is subject to scrutiny…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Police Ten 7 – “Bad boys” episode looked at “bad boys’ most memorable moments” – contained coarse language and nudity which were censored – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – content would not have been unexpected in a long-running reality series about the work of the police – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme preceded by clear warning advising parental guidance – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage viewers to break the…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – featured a story on the experience of a tenant whose family allegedly suffered health problems as a result of living on a property that contained traces of methamphetamine – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created misleading impression that the house was formerly used to manufacture methamphetamine – overstated evidence, for example by reference to the “house” and “home” as opposed to just the garage, and by creating impression a ‘P’ lab had existed when the contamination was marginal and could have been caused by smoking – failed to outline the parameters of the FISL report or make any reference to NZDDA report which found no trace of methamphetamine – broadcaster did not make reasonable efforts to ensure that the item was accurate and did not mislead – upheld Standard 6…...

SummaryThe subject of liable parent contributions was discussed on Nine to Noon on 3 August1993 and unemployment on Morning Report on 13 August 1993. Mr Fudakowski complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the dissenting view given in thediscussion about liable parents was unsourced and therefore was neither balanced norimpartial. With respect to the second item, he complained that comments about theinevitability of long-term unemployment were deeply offensive and lacked balance andobjectivity. In response, RNZ denied that the news items encouraged discrimination against anygroup, or that they were so lacking in balance that they were in breach of broadcastingstandards. Pointing out that the items contained expressions of opinion about matters ofpublic interest, RNZ explained that it could find no justification for the contention that thereporting of those statements imposed an obligation on the broadcaster to undertake anin-depth investigation into the subjects discussed....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint that reality show Naked and Afraid, broadcast after 9pm on Rush, was indecent and should not be shown on television. In the show, a man and woman are left in a remote location naked and with few tools, with the goal to survive for 21 days. With reference to previous decisions on similar programmes, the Authority found the complaint should not be determined as it has consistently not upheld complaints concerning adult-oriented content on late night television when tools aiding choice and control are available. Further, the complaint concerned the complainant’s personal preferences and such complaints are not, in general, capable of being resolved by this complaints process. Decline to Determine: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Discrimination and Denigration...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a 1News item on the Government’s rejection of an application to officially change the town of Russell to its original name, Kororāreka. The complainants alleged an interviewee’s comment that those against the name change were ‘usually older… always white’ was racist and ageist; the accuracy of the same statement was ‘questionable’; and the item was unbalanced, biased and unfair by only including interviews with people who supported the name change....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that two guest panellists’ comments on The AM Show about English rugby players following the Rugby World Cup final breached the discrimination and denigration standard. Discussing some players’ refusal to wear their silver medals after losing the final, the panellists made comments including that the English players were ‘pouty little babies, pathetic, stupid, dumb, bad sportsmanship’, ‘petulant English kids’, ‘prats’, ‘it’s their upbringing’, ‘those English players who wanted to toss their medals on the ground’. The complaint was that these comments were nasty and offensive, and ‘racist’ by suggesting ‘it’s [the players’] upbringing’. The Authority noted the large majority of the comments were clearly directed at the individual players concerned, rather than commenting on a group of people....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A complaint about a Newshub item in which the presenter commented, ‘And I thought the only reason we watch Aussie Rules [AFL] was for the short shorts’, has not been upheld by the Authority. The Authority found that the comment, while inappropriate, did not reach the threshold to be considered a serious violation of community norms of good taste and decency. The Authority acknowledged the importance of contextual factors in considering whether the standards have been breached, including the nature of Newshub as an unclassified news programme and audience expectations of the broadcast. The Authority recognised that the statement was not made with malice or nastiness and found the comment did not breach the discrimination and denigration, balance or fairness standards....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold complaints that three broadcasts showing fishing and hunting were barbaric and cruel. As the Authority has noted in previous decisions on similar complaints from the complainant, killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life and her concerns are based primarily on personal lifestyle 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 three episodes of fishing and hunting programmes. In general, her complaints were that fishing and hunting are barbaric and cruel. More specifically, she objected to the practices of catch-and-release fishing, live baiting and boar hunting. [2] The issue is whether the broadcasts breached any of the standards set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-059 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID PEGRAM of Wellington Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 101/95 Dated the 12th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUSAN STRINGER of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 45/95 Dated the 31st day of May 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SUSAN BATTYE of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 6/95 Dated the 13th day of February 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 I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-014 Dated the 27th day of February 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRISTOPHER S INGRAM of Tauranga Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – discussion about proposed changes to adoption laws to allow homosexual couples to adopt – host said he was “iffy” about the changes and that homosexuality was “unnatural” – co-host and some viewers disagreed with his views – allegedly in breach of discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – host’s comments were provocative but encouraged debate – host’s views were countered by co-host and viewer feedback – tone was not sufficiently malicious to encourage discrimination or denigration – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Radio Hauraki – hosts on breakfast show referred to Helen Clark donating a testicle – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and social responsibility. Findings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – item light-hearted and satirical in nature – broadcaster was mindful of children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At 8. 30am on 11 May 2007, Radio Hauraki broadcast a segment in its breakfast show hosted by the "Morning Pirates", Willy De Wit, Mark Perry and Dean Butler. One of the hosts described a story about a woman in the UK who had recently donated her kidney to her employer, who was in need of a transplant....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....