Search

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 DNZ: Speed Thrills – documentary included footage of young male drivers exceeding speed limit – allegedly encouraged law breaking and glamorised speedingFindings Standard 2 (law and order) and Guidelines 2a, 2b and 2c – did not glamorise, condone or encourage speeding – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The programme DNZ: Speed Thrills was broadcast on TV One on 15 March 2004 at 8. 35pm. It included footage of two young men driving at night in excess of the speed limit. Complaint [2] Alexander Johnston complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the young men were exceeding the speed limit by “considerable margins” and that TVNZ staff must have encouraged them to do so. Otherwise, Mr Johnston wrote, it would have been pointless to have installed cameras in their cars....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – Te Karere – Eye to Eye – Marae – all items concerning emergence of the Māori Party or the by-election in Te Tai Hauauru – complainant was candidate for Te Tai Hauauru seat – when appeared on Te Karere complainant’s words were translated into te reo Māori – allegedly in breach of law and order standard as contrary to Bill of Rights Act – complainant’s candidacy received minimal coverage from other TVNZ news and current affairs – allegedly in breach of balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards....

ComplaintDestiny Television: Homosexuality, Religion and God – series of six programmes delivering religious sermons – denigration of and discrimination against homosexual and transsexual people – offensive – inconsistent with legislation – errors of fact – not impartial – TVNZ upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from repeat broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspect upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings(1) Action taken on Standard 6 – insufficient – uphold (2) Standard 2 Guideline 2a – did not involve principle of law – no uphold (3) Standard 4, Standard 5 – not relevant – not a news, current affairs or other factual programme – no uphold OrderComplaints referred back to broadcaster under s. 13(1)(c) for further consideration of action to be taken This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

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(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 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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on the sentencing of convicted rapist Roger Kahui included a brief re-enactment showing actor forcing entry into victim’s home – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item made it clear to viewers that it was a re-enactment – stylised dramatisation – contextual factors – not 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 9 (children’s interests) – item was brief – unlikely to disturb child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not relevant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

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....

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]....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about file sharing software – showed images from a snuff movie three times during short item – woman seen begging not to be filmed with a gun held to her head – gunshot heard on one occasion but with no image – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standard 1, spoke to news staff and broadcast on-air apology – complainants dissatisfied with decision and action taken FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law or glamorise the criminal activity shown – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – irrespective of whether the snuff movie was real or fake, no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unable to determine whether woman treated fairly – decline…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nightline – report on public’s reaction to a Campbell Live item involving a "self-confessed cat hater" and his method of killing cats – item included a demonstration by Mr Spring showing how he would lower a cage containing a cat into a barrel of water – allegedly in breach of law and order standards The Authority’s DecisionStandard 2 (law and order) – item made it clear to viewers that Mr Spring’s actions were illegal – viewers were not encouraged to break the law – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Nightline, broadcast at 10. 30pm on 29 August 2007, reported on a story broadcast on TV3’s Campbell Live the previous night featuring Ray Spring, a "self-confessed cat hater" from Christchurch....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Nine to Noon – interview with Sir Eion Edgar – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns did not raise any issues of broadcasting standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During Nine to Noon, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National on Monday 22 February 2010, the host interviewed Sir Eion Edgar as he had recently been named Senior New Zealander of the Year....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News, Marae and Te Karere – One News newsreader referred to Prince William as the popular choice for the next “King of England” – Marae discussion on constitutional change – presenter and guests referred to “Queen of England” – Te Karere item referred to Princes Charles as the “monarch of England” – all items allegedly inaccurate, and in breach of law and order standardFindingsStandard 2 – no basis for complaint – not upheld Standard 5 – not inaccurate – use of phrase “Queen/King of England” acceptable description – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Television New Zealand Ltd broadcast items on Marae on 14 November 2004, One News on 11 February 2005 and Te Karere on 8 March 2005, all of which referred in some way to the British Royal Family....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the murder of Deidre Tobin by her partner Craig Jackson – Mr Jackson found not guilty by reason of insanity – interviewed Ms Tobin’s family and friends plus two detectives who believed Mr Jackson was faking his insanity – allegedly in breach of law and order, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – Authority unable to determine the position of the Crown solicitor – overall programme was balanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Jackson, Dr Simpson or the Tobin family – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item entitled “Insanely Jealous?...