Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that nine SOEs had paid bonuses to staff in 2008 – two SOEs had not responded to Official Information Act requests from the broadcaster – showed reporter at Ombudsman's office handing over a complaint about the lack of response – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 4 (balance) and Standard 5 (accuracy) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no evidence of unfair pressure being placed on Office of the Ombudsman – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – repetition of footage showing an unprovoked attack on Korean youths by two “skinheads” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence standards. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – repetition of sequence helped emphasise vicious nature of attack – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not glamorise behaviour or encourage imitation – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – repetition of sequence not gratuitous – verbal warning sufficient – justified in the context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 1 May 2007, reported the sentencing of two “skinheads” involved in a racist attack on a group of Korean youths in Nelson....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A 1 News segment on 14 November 2017 discussed the effect of an expanding Chinese economy on global carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. In a pre-recorded item from the BBC, with reference to the release of CO2, a BBC Correspondent said that ‘the gas traps heat in the atmosphere’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item was inaccurate or unbalanced. The Authority found that the broadcaster was entitled to rely on internationally reputable sources to support the BBC Correspondent’s statement on the issues addressed in the segment. The Authority also found that the broadcaster’s reliance on this leading scientific theory to the exclusion of others in the broadcast was unlikely to leave viewers significantly misinformed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Criminal Minds featured the murder of three restaurant workers during an armed robbery, prompting the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit to re-open a similar cold case that occurred six years earlier. The episode contained violence and drug use. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached broadcasting standards relating to responsible programming, children’s interests and law and order. The Authority found that while the episode contained challenging content, it was classified AO and was preceded by an adequate warning. The programme’s classification, pre-broadcast warning and established reputation as a crime drama enabled viewers to make an informed viewing decision. The programme did not contain visual acts of violence, and the drug use was not portrayed in an instructional or encouraging manner and was part of the episode’s narrative context....

Headnote Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The ComplaintIn a segment of Balls of Steel called "Pain Men", two men devise various methods of inflicting pain on each other. In this programme, one of the men applied an electric belt sander twice to the other man's bare buttocks. The injured man then had a nail hammered through the skin between his thumb and forefinger and into a block of wood. A viewer complained that the programme set a dangerous and stupid example, and breached standards of good taste and decency, law and order, and children's interests. The Broadcaster's ResponseTVNZ said Balls of Steel was a comedy/entertainment programme that contained some sequences which created comedy out of the most distasteful acts. It pointed out that the programme was rated Adults Only, screened at 9. 30pm, and carried a warning that it contained scenes "which may disturb"....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on a disagreement between two individuals about their input into a Rugby World Cup statue – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a balanced and straightforward news report – neither party presented as more credible or worthy than the other – included comment from both parties – no evidence to suggest interview footage unfairly edited – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a straightforward news report – broadcaster was not required to explain the complainant’s position in more detail – viewers would not have been misled – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – complainant’s concerns relate to issues of copyright – Authority cannot assume the role of a court – standard not applicable…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Jay, Flynny and Jacqui – host told a personal anecdote about a prank she committed in her youth, namely setting off a fire alarm “resulting in all of Timaru’s fire engines turning up” – allegedly in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – anecdote was a light-hearted recollection of host’s actions in her youth, with educational message – host made comments condemning her own behaviour and noted the repercussions – story was intended to humour and entertain and did not invite imitation or otherwise encourage listeners to break the law or condone criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] At approximately 2....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that the movie Fifty Shades Darker was in breach of standards because it glorified a manipulative and abusive relationship. The Authority found viewers were sufficiently informed about the nature of the content to enable them to manage their own viewing. The movie did not contain any content that would go beyond audience expectations for the classification and timeband, especially given the well-publicised nature of the movie. The movie did not encourage violent or law-breaking activity. Finally, the Authority also found that people who engage in BDSM (a sexual practice that involves the use of physical control, psychological power, or pain) are not a recognised group for the purposes of the discrimination and denigration standard. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration...

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-147 Dated the 31st day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHERYL PHILPS of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-109 Dated the 24th day of September 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Broadcaster S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on group of duck hunters – hunters shown drinking alcohol and using firearms – brands of alcohol visible – man shown taking his pants off and diving onto a blow-up doll – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – item contained liquor promotion that was not socially responsible – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of man with blow-up doll and mixing of firearms and alcohol strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Rock – stunt in which announcers let off fireworks to test “Jimmy’s ability to dodge fireworks” – allegedly in breach of law and order and social responsibility standardsFindings Principle 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Principle 7Principle 7 (social responsibility) – stunt was socially irresponsible – did not consider effects on child listeners – hosts’ manner trivialised the potential danger of aiming fireworks at another person – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] In a segment called “Do Stuff to Jimmy” on The Rock, broadcast at approximately 8. 15am on 20 October 2006, the announcers commented on the recent call to ban fireworks for public sale....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported new details relating to a New Zealand man who raped and murdered a hitchhiker from the Czech Republic – interviewee and reporter used the term “nutters” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – “nutters” used to refer to person who is dangerous and deranged, and was not intended to comment on people with mental illness – item did not encourage the denigration of, or discrimination against, people with mental illness as a section of the community – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – viewers would have understood intended meaning of “nutters” – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....