Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – two items broadcast one after the other – first item reported on the re-opening of the euthanasia debate in the United Kingdom following the screening of a television documentary which showed a terminally ill man taking a lethal dose of drugs in Switzerland – second item reported on a voluntary euthanasia campaigner who had the words "DO NOT RESUSCITATE" tattooed on her chest – both items allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and children’s interests standards FindingsItem on assisted suicide Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – report was tasteful – did not endorse either position – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item preceded by warning –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TV2 promo – on screen graphics for TV2 promo included a hazy substance wafting up the screen – allegedly represented smoke and thus breached the Smoke Free Environment Act prohibition on promoting smoking behaviourFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – promo did not promote disrespect for the law – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] The imagery used in on-screen graphics to identify a television channel as TV2 included a hazy substance wafting up the screen. It was broadcast frequently at various times. Complaint[2] Brandon Orlandini complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the haze shown in the TV2 promo represented smoke. That view, he said, was shared by others and many, like him, felt a "strong urge to smoke" on seeing the promo....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-033:Rutherford and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-033 PDF1. 11 MB...

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…...

SummaryA woman caller was advised by a programme host on Radio Pacific to lie to the Accident Compensation Corporation in order to obtain a benefit she was not legally entitled to. The broadcast was at about 10. 00pm on 25 September 1999. V P McGlone complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Radio Pacific, about the broadcast. As he did not receive a response from the broadcaster within the statutory 20 working days, Mr McGlone referred the complaint to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. When it responded to the Authority, the broadcaster advised that it had no record of having received the complaint. It advised that it had now upheld the complaint as breaching the requirement to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – report on Paris Hilton going to jail – presenter made comments about Ms Hilton and threw a box of tissues over her shoulder – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, fairness, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – presenter acted in a light-heated and off-the-cuff manner – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – presenter expressed her own opinion in a light-hearted way – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – item would not have disturbed child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item did not contain any violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

An appeal against this decision by Bishop Denis Browne was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2006-485-1611 PDF109....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-015:New Zealand Police and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-015 PDF2. 1 MB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an item on Newshub Live at 6pm, which broke the story of Dr Jonie Girouard issuing medical certificates to patients to attempt to use as vaccine exemptions, breached the privacy and law and order standards. The item featured hidden camera footage filmed by an undercover journalist posing as a patient at Dr Girouard’s practice. The Authority found the footage shown did not breach the privacy of other patients at the practice who were filmed without their consent, as they were not identifiable. It found that the footage did breach the privacy of Dr Girouard, on the basis she was identifiable in the broadcast, and the covert footage amounted to a highly offensive intrusion on her reasonable expectation of seclusion....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a Seven Sharp segment depicting students cycling on a footpath. The complainant stated this was contrary to the Cycling Code. While acknowledging the depiction of potentially unlawful behaviour, the Authority found, in the context of the programme, the broadcast did not promote, glamorise, or condone breaking the law. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Summary District Court Judge Martin Beattie was acquitted on 1 August 1997 on a number of dishonesty charges after a jury trial. It was a high-profile case. On 27 July 1998, a news item revealed the contents of a High Court ruling made before the trial in which the judge had ruled inadmissible a report prepared by a QC at the request of the Chief District Court Judge in the early stages of the investigation. The item reported that the judgment disclosed the QC’s opinion that Judge Beattie was guilty of fraud. Mr Clayton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the QC’s opinion about the judge’s behaviour was "utterly irrelevant", and the disclosure not only breached broadcasting standards, but also invaded Judge Beattie’s privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 66/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MIKE IRVINE of Auckland Broadcaster 95 bFM Auckland University J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

In an episode of Mai Home Run, one of the radio presenters related a story about accidentally taking and not returning a bag containing items, including a gaming console, belonging to Lil’ Romeo. The presenter also disclosed the name of one of the people involved in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item breached the privacy standard, finding that the named individual was identifiable and would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information disclosed. The Authority also found the disclosure to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, as it had the potential to significantly damage the named person’s reputation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the law and order standard, finding that in context the broadcast did not encourage or actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour....

ComplaintOne News – item reported survey of teenagers’ attitudes – suggested amongst other things trend to drugs away from alcohol and disrespect for New Zealand Flag and Anthem – inaccurate – biased FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G5 – no disrespect for principles of law – no uphold Standard G6 – not unfair or unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The findings of a survey of teenagers were reported in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 29 October 2001. Among the findings were changes in attitudes to drugs, the National Anthem and the New Zealand Flag. [2] Kenneth Lord complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the findings were biased and amounted to propaganda....

Summary An advertisement for a light truck contained language which had been the subject of complaints to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB). The Board’s decision on those complaints was reported in a news item on TV3’s 3 News on 23 March between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Extracts from the advertisement, including the offending language, was included in the item. Mr Shierlaw complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that by screening the advertisement before 8. 30pm, as required by the ASCB, TV3 had failed to comply with standard G5 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters to observe the principles of the law. As TV3 did not respond within the statutory 20 working day period, Mr Shierlaw referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....