Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 45/94 Decision No: 46/94 Dated the 23rd day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by PETA BROWN of Port Ohope 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: 1996-021 Decision No: 1996-022 Dated the 29th day of February 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by WINTON ALLEN of Lower Hutt and A G T WANE of Warkworth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-82 Decision No: 1996-83 Dated the 1st day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by HEALTHLINK SOUTH of Christchurch Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-060 Dated the 18th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NEW ZEALAND COMMITTEE FOR SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS OF THE PARANORMAL INC. of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Members: L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryA no-smacking programme developed by the Children Young Persons and their Families Service was the subject of an item on One Network News broadcast on 24 September 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. It included file footage showing a Pacific Island woman beating a young boy. Ms Elliott complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the segment showing the woman beating the child was entirely at variance with the rest of the item and asked whether its purpose was to reinforce a racist stereotype about Pacific Island people and violence. In her view, the woman and the Pacific Island community were owed an apology. TVNZ responded that because smacking was a common form of discipline in the Pacific Island community, some resistance to the CYPFS campaign was expected from that quarter. In its view, the sequence was not irrelevant in that context....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fast Times at Ridgemont High – female movie characters shown practising on carrots how to perform oral sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and fairness FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – no explicit sexual activity was shown – movie was AO and broadcast outside of children’s viewing times – warning for sexual material allowed parents to exercise discretion – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Fast Times at Ridgemont High was broadcast on C4 at 8. 30pm on Wednesday 9 December 2009. At approximately 8. 42pm, two teenage female characters in the movie were shown eating in a high school cafeteria....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Q + A, Breakfast, Close Up and One News – items discussed proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid and whether there were health risks involved – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programmes discussed a controversial issue of public importance – broadcaster made reasonable efforts to present significant points of view across programmes within the period of current interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – statements of fact were qualified – concerns adequately dealt with under Standard 4 – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not nominate a person in original complaint who was treated unfairly – Minister was treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programmes presented range of views on a topical issue – would not have alarmed viewers – not upheld This…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – showed magazine photograph which reported that celebrities Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson had moved into a flat together – photograph included women’s Chihuahua dogs – presenter said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together” – allegedly offensive, unfair and deceptiveFindingsDecline to determine complaint under s11(b) of Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast at 10. 00pm on 5 April 2005, referred to an issue of New Zealand Woman’s Weekly featuring a photograph of celebrity flatmates Charlotte Dawson and Nicky Watson, and their pet dogs. The presenter referred to the dogs and said “Cricket and Harper have recently moved in together”. Complaint [2] Graham Wolf complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comment was offensive and unfair to the named celebrities....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

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.…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Overnight Talk Show – radio host played excerpt from television show The View in which Fox News commentator, Bill O’Reilly, stated that the mosque near Ground Zero was “inappropriate” and that “Muslims killed us on 9/11” – radio host discussed comments – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – listeners would not expect a range of balanced views from a talkback programme – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host’s comments amounted to opinion and analysis – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – story about “moon man” Ken Ring and his claims he predicted Christchurch earthquakes – John Campbell interviewed Mr Ring – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, children’s interests, responsible programming and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ring was treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – Mr Ring’s predictions were a controversial issue of public importance – his views were presented within the period of current interest in other media coverage – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainants did not specify which aspects of the programme they considered to be inaccurate, or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of this interlocutory decision:Interlocutory Decision 1999-ID001–ID008 PDF185. 96 kB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-002:Helm and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-002 PDF321. 84 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-115:Tawhai and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-115 PDF300. 14 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3rd Degree considered a controversial and increasingly popular high fat and low carbohydrate diet. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the item was unbalanced and inaccurate because it was more favourable to the ‘pro-fat’ side of the debate. The broadcaster clearly made efforts to interview experts on both sides of the debate, and viewers were left to make up their own minds or seek further information about the merits of the diet. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness Introduction [1] An item on 3rd Degree considered a controversial and increasingly popular high fat and low carbohydrate diet. A reporter interviewed a number of experts, and also talked to several people who had experienced weight loss and health benefits from the diet. The item aired on TV3 on 23 April 2014....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....