Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 15/95 Dated the 16th day of March 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P H E BLOOMER of Napier 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: 157/95 Dated the 19th day of December 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by C A MAUDE of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

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 – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News, Marae and Te Karere – One News newsreader referred to Prince William as the popular choice for the next “King of England” – Marae discussion on constitutional change – presenter and guests referred to “Queen of England” – Te Karere item referred to Princes Charles as the “monarch of England” – all items allegedly inaccurate, and in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 – no basis for complaint – not upheld Standard 5 – not inaccurate – use of phrase “Queen/King of England” acceptable description – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast items on Marae on 14 November 2004, One News on 11 February 2005 and Te Karere on 8 March 2005, all of which referred in some way to the British Royal Family....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989RadioWorks news item broadcast on More FM, Radio Live and Radio Pacific – complainants had been convicted of failing to move stock ahead of flooding – news item reported that Federated Farmers would fund appeal – SPCA said appeal condoned negligence – one named farmer reported as saying appeal should not be supported by Federated Farmers as flooding was not unusual and, on the occasion resulting in the conviction, neighbours had offered to move cattle – allegedly lacked balance, inaccurate, unfair and breached privacyFindingsPrinciple 2 (law and order) – not applicable – not upheldPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – complaint dealt with under Principle 5Principle 5 (fairness) – no unfairness in broadcaster’s dealings with the complainants – no unfairness with comments advanced – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – complaint dealt with under Principle 5Principle…...

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – "Return to Sender" – item about the return to Sri Lanka of a 16-year-old woman who was deported despite claims that she had been sexually abused by family members to whom she was returning – included footage shot in Sri Lanka with members of the young woman's family and included comments about the sexual abuse of children in Sri Lanka – broadcaster allegedly failed to maintain standards consistent with law and order and breached young woman's privacy – item allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – no New Zealand law in dispute – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy principle (vii) – consent form signed by grandmother on young woman's behalf – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) and Guideline 4a – item discussed two controversial issues – (1) specific deportation and dangers for young woman –…...

ComplaintOne News – in view of low water levels, news item about the exposure of ships sunk in River Danube in Second World War – estimated up to 2000 bodies in the river – reference to Nazi navy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandard 2 – not relevant – no uphold Standard 4 – not unbalanced – no upholdStandard 5 – unable to establish facts – decline to determine Standard 6 not unfair – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The extremely low levels of the River Danube in Serbia had resulted in the exposure of a number of German Navy ships from the Second World War which had been scuttled as the Nazis withdrew. It was reported that up to 2000 people on the ships had been drowned when the ships were scuttled....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tiger’s Tail – movie contained scene which combined sex and violence – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order and violence FindingsStandard 10 (violence) – guideline 10c – depiction of rape required pre-broadcast warning – broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – movie did not glamorise rape, or otherwise promote or condone rape – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 10 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called The Tiger’s Tail was broadcast during TV One’s Sunday Theatre timeslot at 8. 30pm on Sunday 31 October 2010....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Nightline – item reported that Jeremy Clarkson had apologised for his comments that striking workers should be shot – allegedly in breach of law and order, discrimination and denigration, and violence standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item was a straightforward news report about Mr Clarkson’s comments – broadcasting the comments did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – re-broadcasting Mr Clarkson’s comments did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, a section of the community – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Introduction [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast on TV3 at 10....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-094:Lane and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-094 PDF1. 36 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-108–110:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Inc, Armstrong and daughters and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-108–110719. 35 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item reported on death of a man who was shot while out hunting – during visual reconstruction person pointed a firearm at the camera – allegedly in breach of law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – footage of a gun pointed at the camera did not, when taken in context, encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A Close Up item reporting on the sentencing of a man convicted of shooting another man in a hunting accident, included visual reconstructions of people hunting. The reporter referred to previous hunting accidents, and a brief, out-of-focus shot of a gun pointing towards the camera was shown during a visual reconstruction of a hunting trip....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Fix – host described his experience of receiving a speeding ticket – said that if he had slowed down, “I probably would have held up traffic and frustrated people” and, “I hope the $120 goes towards some good boot polish and moustache trimmer” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and law and order FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – host relaying personal story – comments intended to be comedic – did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Morning Fix, broadcast on More FM from 5....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Complaint20/20 – "A Position of Power" – Dr Morgan Fahey – allegations by female patients of sexual and professional misconduct – unbalanced – unfair – breach of privacy Findings(1) Standard G1 – allegations not inaccurate – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair to broadcast allegations without proof of guilt – not unfair to use hidden camera footage – high public interest – reasonable belief that no other way to obtain information – no uphold(3) Standard G6 – reasonable opportunity given for comment – statement broadcast – no uphold (4) Standards G2, G3, G5, G7, G12, G14, G15, G16, G18, G19, G20 and V16 – no uphold (5) Privacy – Privacy Principles (i) and (iii) relevant – Privacy Principle (vi) – public interest defence – no uphold Cross-References 2000-106–107, 1992-094, 1996-130–132 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Life on Mars – included a brief scene of a man having his hand held down and hit with a telephone receiver – allegedly in breach of law and order and violence Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo was rated PGR – violence was fleeting – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the programme Life on Mars, a British science fiction and police drama television series, was broadcast during One News at 6pm on TV One on Monday 23 June 2008. [2] The promo included a brief scene of a man being interrogated....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment of The Project, the presenters discussed whether it was illegal to wear headphones while driving. One of the presenters, a well-known New Zealand comedian, said that he wore headphones while driving ‘because it drowns out the sound of the seatbelt warning’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s comment trivialised an important road safety issue. The segment as a whole carried a positive road safety message, with the presenters sharing their surprise that wearing headphones while driving was not illegal in New Zealand (though distracted drivers could still be charged with careless driving). The comment was clearly intended to be humorous and the reactions of the other presenters balanced the comment and signalled to viewers that wearing your seatbelt was important....