Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – item discussed Marc Ellis’s promotional stunt for his new business which involved discharging explosives on Rangitoto Island – allegedly in breach of law and order and fairness standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – not clear from the item that the stunt amounted to criminal activity – item did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify which individuals or organisations were treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 20/20, entitled “Guerrilla Marc[eting]”, broadcast on TV2 at 9. 30pm on Thursday 15 November 2007, discussed the first major guerrilla marketing stunt that had taken place in New Zealand....

Complaint3 News – item on initiation ceremony at girl’s school – violence – offensive – not in public interest – unsuitable for children FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a – context – no uphold Standard 2 and Guideline 2d – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 9 and Guideline 9a – interests of children considered – no uphold Standard 10 and Guideline10a – violence justified in context of item – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on 3 News broadcast by TV3 between 6. 00–7. 00pm on 8 May 2003, depicted a violent initiation ceremony, referred to as "hazing", at a girls’ school in the United States....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Man Apart – movie about two American drug enforcement officers fighting an ongoing drug war on the California/Mexico border – contained violent scenes including shootings, car explosions and beatings – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme classification, children’s interests and violence standards FindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – majority of Authority considered the movie’s classification to be borderline but correct – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster failed to adequately consider the interests of child viewers by broadcasting the movie at 8. 30pm on a Saturday – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster failed to exercise sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence by broadcasting the movie at 8....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast contained inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced information and breached the privacy of Trunk Property's director. The item was materially accurate, was not unfair to Trunk Property or its director and did not breach the director's privacy. Trunk Property was given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the story and its response was fairly presented in the item. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming Introduction [1] 3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland....

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....

Summary A documentary about cigarette smoking in New Zealand called "Up in Smoke" was broadcast on Assignment on TV One, between 8. 30pm and 9. 30pm on 23 September 1999. The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand Limited ("Tobacco Institute") complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme was inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced in numerous ways. The Tobacco Institute also complained that the programme portrayed tobacco company executives and Maori women in a way which was likely to encourage discrimination against them. TVNZ responded that the programme was not unbalanced or unfair to the tobacco industry. In its view, the programme surveyed a broad range of relevant views about smoking, and included a tobacco industry perspective. TVNZ also disagreed that it had breached broadcasting standards relating to discrimination. TVNZ declined to uphold any aspect of the complaint....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on verdict in Ewen McDonald murder trial – reporter commented, “You could well be thinking, if he’s not guilty, why hasn’t he walked out these doors behind me and spoken to media?...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Seven Sharp – presenters made comments about leader of the Conservative Party Colin Craig – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, responsible programming, and violence standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – comments in 17 April item aimed at Colin Craig in his professional capacity and therefore not unfair – comments in 24 April item were insulting and personally abusive to Colin Craig and therefore unfair to him – upheld in part Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – alleged coarse language did not threaten current norms of good taste and decency – abusive nature of comments more appropriately addressed as a matter of fairness to Colin Craig, rather than harm to general audience – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – items did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people who opposed…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-038 Decision No: 1996-039 Dated the 28th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DARRYLL CHOWAN and DARRYLL CHOWAN MOTORS LTD of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary A short sequence in Havoc and Newsboy’s Sell-Out Tour showed the characters Mikey Havoc and Jeremy Wells (Newsboy) camping on Great Barrier Island. The item was broadcast on TV2 on 20 July 1999 at 10. 00pm. Robin Court complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme showed and "advocated" camping and related activities on and around property owned by the Onekokoru Trust. He said that some of the activities breached or could breach by-laws, and that the "unauthorised use" of Trust property was offensive and deeply disturbing to members of the Trust. TVNZ responded that the land it showed was not identifiable as Trust property. Accordingly, it said that the programme did not advocate anything about the merits of Trust property as a camping place....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – “The Monster of Berhampore” – case of Wallace Lake who ran the Berhampore Children’s Home – accused of sexually molesting children – police had received 13 complaints and decided to charge Mr Lake before he died – questioned whether Presbyterian Support Services who ran the home had done enough to help complainants – allegedly unbalanced and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – did not encourage viewers to disrespect principles of law – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – programme discussed controversial issue of public importance – programme did assume Mr Lake’s guilt – TVNZ contacted Mr Lake’s solicitor and family as Mr Lake deceased – they declined to comment – TVNZ made reasonable efforts to get other perspective on allegations – complainant identified no other information or means by which to refute allegations against…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about 14-year-old boy accused of throwing eight kilogram slab of concrete from motorway bridge killing a motorist – boy had been granted name suppression – name of accused was shown for approximately five seconds written on a folder – complaint that broadcaster had breached name suppression order – broadcaster upheld complaint under law and order standard – complainant dissatisfied with action takenFindingsDecline to determine complaint pursuant to section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A One News item broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 3 July 2006 discussed a court case involving a youth accused of throwing an eight kilogram slab of concrete from a motorway bridge, killing a passing motorist....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News and Nightline – footage of an assault on a man charged with child abuse – described as “street justice” – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – crime was not endorsed or glamorised – “street justice” a colloquialism – broadcaster did not condone assault – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 3 News broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on 1 April 2005 detailed the lifting of name suppression in a prominent child abuse case. The piece contained footage of an assault on the accused that had screened previously when the name suppression order was still in effect. The voiceover stated: Last week when he appeared in court it was street justice being meted out on [the accused]....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Exposé: Prostitution – After the Act – documentary looking at the effect of the Prostitution Reform Act on the sex industry – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance and accuracyFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – no incitement to illegal acts – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item provided a range of views on the controversial issue – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Exposé: Prostitution – After the Act was a documentary broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 29 September 2005. The programme examined the way in which the Prostitution Reform Act (PRA) had affected the sex industry in New Zealand. The introduction stated: In June 2003, prostitution was decriminalised....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for 3 News – showed a man head-butting another man – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, children’s interests, and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage was fleeting and inexplicit and no visible injury was shown – broadcast during Home and Away and five minutes before the news – formed part of a newsworthy story – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – contextual factors – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion when dealing with the issue of violence – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – contextual factors – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – footage in the promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

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...