Search Rapua

ComplaintThe Tribe – teen drama series – violence – unsuitable viewing material for children Findings Standards 4, 5 & 6 – not relevant – decline to determine Standard 1 – contextual matters – no uphold Standard 2 – no uphold Standard 9 – not unsuitable for teenage audience – no uphold Standard 10 – violence ritualistic and symbolic – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An episode of The Tribe, a "futuristic teen drama" was broadcast on TV3 on Sunday 14 July 2002 at 9. 50am. [2] Francis Fielding complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme contained violence and was inappropriate viewing material for children. [3] When the broadcaster failed to respond to his formal complaint, Mr Fielding referred it to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an RNZ News item covering anti-racism protests in Washington and London. The item reported that after ‘a largely peaceful day’, some of the British protesters threw bottles at police, mounted officers charged at the protesters, and an officer ‘required hospital treatment after falling from her horse’. The complaint was that this characterisation of the events breached broadcasting standards as the protest was not ‘peaceful’ and other reports noted the horse bolted after a firework or similar was thrown from the crowd. The Authority found the item was materially accurate, and that the remaining standards raised were not applicable to the complainant’s concerns. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Fairness, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Darpan – report on first Hindu conference in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, programme information and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – report was not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard relates to an individual – no individual specified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in the item – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Council spokesperson explained what the conference was about – viewers were made aware that the conference had a number of themes – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – report was a fair and accurate reflection of the event – not upheld Standard 7 (programme…...

Complaint3 News – comment by sports presenter about player "milking" injury – incident during rugby matchFindings(1) Standard G14 – interpretation acceptable – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During a sports item on 3 News about a head-high tackle which had occurred during a rugby match, the sports presenter commented that the tackled player’s team-mates were "quick to ensure he milked it for all it was worth". The item was broadcast on TV3 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm on 12 March 2000. Mathew Zacharias complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached numerous broadcasting standards....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 102/95 Decision No: 103/95 Dated the 5th day of October 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEDIAWOMEN of Wellington and LINDA McDOUGALL of London Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, the host Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller, the complainant, who went by the name of ‘Alex’. He said ‘back in 17-something… I’d meet him on the beach as the sun came up and I’d potentially kill him or let him kill me in a duel’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the host had made a ‘veiled death threat’ against the complainant. It was clear the host was not making a serious death threat, but was using provocative, metaphorical language to express his strong views about the complainant. Not Upheld: Law and Order, Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration Introduction [1] During Talkback with Karyn Hay and Andrew Fagan, Mr Fagan made comments about a regular caller who went by the name of ‘Alex’....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item on girl gangs in Hawke’s Bay – interviewed current and former gang members – contained footage of four young teenage girls who were shown wearing gang-style clothing and spray-painting graffiti on a public basketball court – included a re-enactment involving two young girls breaking into a house – gang members shown drinking alcohol and talking about fighting – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – four young girls identifiable – disclosed private facts – children under 16 could not consent – item not in the best interests of the children – girl aged 16 agreed to participate on condition her identity would be secret – identities not sufficiently protected – disclosed private facts about the girls – highly offensive disclosure – upheld Standard…...

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....

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....

ComplaintAssignment – inaccurate, unbalanced, failed to respect principles of lawFindingsStandard G1 – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfairly treated in preparation of programme; possible inferences did not constitute unfairness in terms of broadcasting standards – no uphold Standard G5 – no upholdStandard G6 – overall not unfair, unbalanced or partial; a new perspective offered on a historical matter – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Assignment programme, broadcast on TV One on 30 March 2000 beginning at 8. 30pm, re-examined allegations that Dr William Sutch had engaged in espionage. According to the programme, despite his having been tried and acquitted, fresh evidence existed to show that there was doubt about the justice of the acquittal....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-127 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by NICK KEARNEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report featured an interview with the manager of teacher practice at the Education Council. The interview discussed the Council’s drug testing of teachers and its ‘zero tolerance’ approach to cannabis use, and referred to a recent finding of misconduct against a New Zealand teacher who refused to undergo a drug test. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item ‘pushed’ marijuana use by teachers. The item did not promote the use of illegal drugs or condone the behaviour of the teacher referred to. Rather, it offered a robust examination of the Council’s methods of drug testing teachers and its ‘zero tolerance’ approach to cannabis use. In this context the item did not encourage listeners to use illegal drugs or otherwise undermine law and order....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint regarding a comment made by radio panellist Catherine Robertson about ‘murderous fantasies’, concerning punishment of an individual who escaped COVID-19 managed isolation. It was a satirical comment intended to be humorous and in line with audience expectations for the programme. The Authority noted satire and humour are important aspects of freedom of expression. It found limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion was not justified. Not Upheld: Violence, Law and Order, Balance...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands, including its fishing and hunting opportunities. During an interview with a tourism expert, one of the programme’s hosts commented, ‘I’d rather shoot myself, to be honest, than go and do that in the Chatham Islands. ’ The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comment was offensive and denigrated the Chatham Islands. The tourism expert immediately countered the comment with positive statements about visiting the Chatham Islands, and the host later clarified what he had meant by the comment. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Fairness, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] A Seven Sharp item looked at tourism in the Chatham Islands....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported – release of woman’s lawyer’s letter when lawyer was criticised by Minister of Immigration – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair to lawyer and failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – no principles of law involved – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – lawyer not given opportunity to respond to Minister’s criticism – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misleading as to source of letter – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to lawyer – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent developments in the case of a young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported were covered in an item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 beginning at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989KFC Drive-by show – random prank phone call – host called the same number twice – sang a song and then suggested the man was rude for hanging up – allegedly in breach of law and order, social responsibility and fairness standards Findings Principle 2 (law and order) – no evidence that the host condoned criminal behaviour or encouraged criminal activity – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – unable to determine in the absence of a recording – decline to determine Principle 7 (social responsibility) – subsumed under Principle 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On the KFC Drive-by show between 3pm and 7pm on 27 April 2007, the host dialled a random telephone number from the phone book belonging to the “Johnson family”....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-039 Decision No: 1998-040 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by C of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News: Midday and One News – reported on a police drugs bust involving former Australian swimmer Scott Miller – Charlotte Dawson mentioned as being his ex-wife – one item included wedding photos of Ms Dawson and Mr Miller – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – items did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – items were accurate on points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Ms Dawson was treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....