Search Rapua

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 1989Sports Tonight – reporter interviewing supermarket staff and patrons – ate a lolly from one of the bulk bins – allegedly in breach of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – light-hearted prank – viewers not encouraged to break the law – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Sports Tonight broadcast on TV3 at 11. 15pm on 11 March 2005 featured a reporter interviewing supermarket staff and patrons about sports trivia. During the segment, the reporter ate a lolly from one of the bulk bins. Complaint [2] Stephen Ross complained to CanWest TVWorks Limited, the broadcaster, that the actions of the reporter had amounted to theft under the Crimes Act 1961. By broadcasting the item to “the easily influenced public”, he contended, CanWest had endorsed the reporter’s actions....

ComplaintHolmes – Waitara shooting – interview with eye-witnesses – failure to observe standards consistent with maintenance of law and orderFindings(1) Standard G5 – no prejudice to any proceedings or disrespect for principles of law – no uphold (2) Standard G6 – balance provided during period of current interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Waitara couple who had witnessed some of the events which resulted in the shooting by police of Stephen Wallace was interviewed on Holmes broadcast on TV One on 2 May 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm. I B Owen complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview was tantamount to "trial by television" and breached the requirement for broadcasters to observe standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – Paul Holmes Breakfast – derogatory comments about United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan – including reference to Mr Annan as “cheeky darkie” – racist – offensive – breach of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate – broadcaster upheld complaints – breach of good taste and racist – apologies – dissatisfied with action taken on aspects upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld; interview with Dr Brian Edwards about women in journalism – host’s references to female journalists – sexist Findings(1) Action taken on Principles 1 and 7 regarding comments about Mr Annan – action taken sufficient – no uphold (2) Principle 2 – appropriately considered under Principle 7 – no uphold Principle 4 – editorial opinion – not applicable – no uphold Principle 5 – appropriately considered under Principle 7 – no uphold Principle 6 – no inaccuracies – no uphold Principle 7 – comments about female journalists – threshold not…...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Work and Income computer error leading to disclosure of information about some Work and Income clients, and ramifications for beneficiaries – allegedly sensationalist, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – Ministry’s position not adequately presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained many inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Ministry and its chief executive – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast {1} An item on One News, broadcast on TV One on 27 November 2003, reported on a computer error made by Work and Income, a division of the Ministry of Social Development, which had caused some information about some Work and Income clients to be sent to other clients....

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]....

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News bulletin reported on recent Islamic State activity and showed footage of identified supporters of ISIS and its training camps. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this promoted, encouraged and glamorised terrorism. The news bulletin carried high public interest and was a straightforward report of recent terrorist activity that in no way condoned or glorified this behaviour. Not Upheld: Law and OrderIntroduction[1] A ONE News bulletin reported on recent Islamic State activity and showed footage of identified supporters of ISIS and its training camps. [2] Anthony Cranston complained that the reporting of ISIS activities promoted, encouraged and glamorised terrorism. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the law and order standard as set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. [4] The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 12 January 2015....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Nightline and 3 News – news items reported on release of convicted sex offender Stewart Murray Wilson – referred to Mr Wilson as “the Beast of Blenheim” and “the Beast” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, responsible programming and children’s interests FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to individuals and organisations so cannot be considered in relation to prisoners in general – label was assigned to Mr Wilson and the nature of his crimes many years ago and has been used extensively throughout the media – it has become a well-known nickname and the broadcaster cannot be held responsible for its continued use – broadcasts also contained Mr Wilson’s legal name – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – use of the label “the Beast of Blenheim” and…...

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. 1993-126:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-126 PDF420. 11 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....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about questions asked of a New Zealander stranded in India following the Government’s suspension of travel. The complaint alleged the questions breached the law and order standard as they suggested numerous ways the interviewee could avoid the travel ban and illegally return home. The Authority found the questions did not actively encourage illegal activity nor actively undermine law and order, and there was a high public interest in the broadcast.   Not Upheld: Law and Order...

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…...

ComplaintShortland Street – episodes about a child of drug dealer in coma having taken a capsule of cannabis oil – drug dealer said she gave child small amounts of cannabis oil to calm him as he was ADHD – offensive – encouraged illegal behaviour – inaccurate – unbalanced FindingsStandard 1 and Guideline 1a and Standard 2 – use of cannabis oil to treat ADHD child shown as unacceptable and irresponsible – no uphold Standards 4 and 5 – do not apply to fictional programmes – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The treatment of a child "Max", who had taken a capsule of cannabis oil was a story line in an episode of Shortland Street broadcast on TV2 at 7. 00pm on 17 July 2002....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During Predators, a science fiction film about a group of humans hunted by aliens, a male character who was a convicted murderer, commented ‘I’m gonna rape me some fine bitches’ and made references to consuming cocaine. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the comments glamorised criminal activity and denigrated women. The comments were acceptable taking into account both the external context, including the time of broadcast, AO classification, and pre-broadcast warning for violence and language, as well as the narrative context, including that the film was highly unrealistic, and the development of that particular character who was obviously a ‘baddie’ and despised by the other characters....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News at Midday – reported on alleged immigration scam and Gerard Otimi’s appearance in court – included a graphic “Immigration Scam” – allegedly in breach of law and order, balance, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic not inaccurate in context of whole item which referred to “alleged” scam and “charges” – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – would have been clearer to phrase graphic as a question – item made it clear the scam was “alleged” and Mr Otimi was facing charges – absence of question mark did not result in Mr Otimi being treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item reported on Mr Otimi’s appearance in Court – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote…...

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand National Party – John Key pictured in moving vehicle – complaint that Mr Key was not wearing a seatbelt – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E1 – standards in the Free-to-Air Television Code apply to election programmes Standard 2 (law and order) – advertisement showed Mr Key removing seatbelt – reasonably attentive viewer would have concluded that he was wearing a seatbelt – even if he was not shown wearing a seatbelt, would not have breached Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – advertisement did not contain any material likely to disturb or alarm children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....