Search

SummaryA defaulting taxpayer said to have incurred a penalty of over $86,000 for non-payment of an $84. 00 tax bill had subsequently committed suicide, according to an item on Holmes broadcast on 2 February 1999 between 7. 00–7. 30pm. In an item on 3 February the programme highlighted other cases where tax bills were said to have escalated to become huge debts. On 4 February Holmes reported that the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) had responded to a previous programme by admitting it was in the wrong in its treatment of a defaulting taxpayer featured on the first programme. A further statement from the IRD read out in the programme on 5 February summarised some previously unreported facts relating to one of the cases referred to in the 3 February item....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-035 Decision No: 1998-036 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION (Wanganui Conservancy) and W F CARLIN of Wanganui Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – message “Kill Yourself Now” flashed on the screen for a split second – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information and children’s interests Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – action taken by the broadcaster sufficient – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – standard not applicable – not upheld (This headnote does not form part of the decision. ) Broadcast [1] During an episode of Eating Media Lunch, broadcast on TV2 at 10pm on 2 November 2007, the message “Kill Yourself Now” was displayed on the screen just before the programme’s opening credits....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-134 Dated the 16th day of October 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT SMITH of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

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

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Peewee’s Sister – children’s short story about a boy who was being bullied for his school lunch – story contained two parts involving scuffles between characters – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and social responsibility Findings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – theme of a bully being beaten by his own tactics of physical force not inappropriate for a children’s story – broadcaster sufficiently considered the story’s effect on child listeners – not upheld Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Principle 7 Principle 2 (law and order) – subsumed into consideration of Principle 7 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported public criticism of Taupo District Council’s apparent inaction in Turangi over the state of a swimming pool, sports ground facilities, and footpaths – interviewed chairman of the Taupo/Tongariro Community Board – allegedly in breach of standards relating to the maintenance of law and order, balance, fairness and accuracy FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – no disrespect for principles of law shown– not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – state of council facilities was controversial issue of public importance and reasonable opportunity given to respond to criticisms – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – criticisms advanced by named residents – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ormsby given opportunity to reply to criticisms of specific facilities – Turangi described fairly – opportunity for residents to participate in setting priorities for expenditure of rates explained – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – exchange between reporter and Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, had been recorded prior to a scheduled interview – allegedly in breach of Dr Cullen’s privacy, unfair, and in breach of law and order and programme information standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – standard has no application on this occasion – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts – no interest in solitude and seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Dr Cullen – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported – release of woman’s lawyer’s letter when lawyer was criticised by Minister of Immigration – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair to lawyer and failed to maintain standards consistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – no principles of law involved – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – lawyer not given opportunity to respond to Minister’s criticism – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – misleading as to source of letter – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unfair to lawyer – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Recent developments in the case of a young Sri Lankan woman who had been deported were covered in an item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 beginning at 6....

Complaint20/20 – “In Harm’s Way” – item about actions of Child, Youth and Family Services Department – breach of law and order – breach of social workers’ privacy – breach of children’s privacy – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfairFindings Standard 2 – item did not affect “orderly and just disposition” of court cases – hand-over coverage did not glamorise or condone criminal activity – no uphold Standard 3 and Guideline 3a – social workers – Privacy Principle (i) disclosure not offensive – no uphold; Child A & B – Privacy Principle (vii) – best interests of children considered by broadcaster – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – no mandatory reporting in New Zealand – uphold on this aspect – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 – subsumed under Standard 4No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintInside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision – documentary – abortion –inaccurate statements – unbalanced – undermined New Zealand legislation FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2a – lawful standard maintained – no uphold Standard 4 – programme balanced – no upholdStandard 5 and Guidelines 5b, 5d & 5e – mixture of fact & opinion – accurate and impartial – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Inside New Zealand: The Hardest Decision was a documentary which followed three women while they made a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. Several other women, who had been through the same experience, were also interviewed on the programme. The documentary was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 28 November 2002....

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....

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?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Last Chance Dogs – reality series about dogs with behavioural problems and their owners – episode showed three dogs being taken from their owner as they were not registered and were aggressive towards other dogs – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – focus was on dogs being removed from owner because they were not registered – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – programme did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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(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(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item profiled one man’s experience in a Chinese prison, including his claims about forced prison labour and the exportation of prison products to the West – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – item focused on the experience of one man – did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant’s concerns related to information that was conveyed as the interviewee’s personal opinion and interpretation of events – exempt from standards of accuracy under guideline 5a – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the item was treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – item focused on one man and his…...

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....

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....