Search Rapua

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?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring – characters referred to smoking “weed” and “leaf” – allegedly in breach of broadcasting standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – references to “weed” and “leaf” did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote or condone criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, characters made two brief references to “weed” and “leaf”. Bilbo Baggins the hobbit, and Gandalf the wizard, were shown smoking pipes as Bilbo commented, “Old Toby, the finest weed in the South Farthing. ” Later, Gandalf said to Saruman the wizard, “All these long years [the ring] was in the Shire, under my very nose”....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about a painting by Philip Clairmont called “The Possum” – discussed who owned the painting, the authenticity of the signature and whether it was intended to be sold as a serious work – included interviews with Mr Clairmont’s son, ex-partner and one of his friends – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – item treated the complainant fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – accurate to state that the complainant had made thousands from the sale of Clairmont artworks – decline to determine under section 11(b) whether the signature was genuine – item did not imply that complainant had forged the signature – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity –…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-114 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROAD TRANSPORT FORUM NEW ZEALAND Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 76/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P R PARRY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

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....

Complaint3 News – comment by sports presenter about player "milking" injury – incident during rugby matchFindings(1) Standard G14 – interpretation acceptable – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During a sports item on 3 News about a head-high tackle which had occurred during a rugby match, the sports presenter commented that the tackled player’s team-mates were "quick to ensure he milked it for all it was worth". The item was broadcast on TV3 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm on 12 March 2000. Mathew Zacharias complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached numerous broadcasting standards....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported that an increasing number of beneficiaries were being banned from Work and Income offices due to heightened security as a result of the fatal shootings at a WINZ office in 2014. The reporter interviewed a beneficiary who said that this was ‘no surprise’ because dealing with WINZ is ‘frustrating’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments from the beneficiary were irresponsible and encouraged violence. The focus of the item was on security at WINZ offices and the beneficiary was relating his personal experience; the item did not advocate violence....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Rock Morning Rumble included a stunt featuring the Prime Minister, in which he was invited to enter a cage installed in the studio and ‘pick up the soap’. Upon the Prime Minister doing so, the host quoted a recognised rape scene from the film Deliverance, saying, ‘You’ve got a pretty little mouth Prime Minister’. The Authority upheld a complaint that the stunt amounted to a deliberate reference to prison rape that had the effect of trivialising sexual violence and specifically prison rape. While the segment was allegedly intended to be humorous, which is an important aspect of the exercise of free speech, the stunt overstepped the boundaries of legitimate humour and was offensive....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-063:Milnes and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-063 PDF445. 85 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Breakfast, in which the hosts and viewer feedback discussed people stealing at supermarket self-service checkouts by putting in the wrong code for items they are purchasing. The Authority found the programme did not actively encourage viewers to steal or break the law in breach of the law and order standard. Across the programme as a whole, the hosts and viewers offered a range of views on the ethics of stealing at self-checkouts, including strong views against such behaviour, and clearly acknowledged it was ‘theft’ and illegal. The tone of the discussion was consistent with audience expectations of Breakfast and its hosts, and would not have unduly offended or distressed viewers, so the good taste and decency standard was also not breached....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item on duck hunting – hunter pointed a rifle at the camera – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – hunter’s action was intended to be humorous and light-hearted – did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 2 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at approximately 6....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report featured an interview with the manager of teacher practice at the Education Council. The interview discussed the Council’s drug testing of teachers and its ‘zero tolerance’ approach to cannabis use, and referred to a recent finding of misconduct against a New Zealand teacher who refused to undergo a drug test. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item ‘pushed’ marijuana use by teachers. The item did not promote the use of illegal drugs or condone the behaviour of the teacher referred to. Rather, it offered a robust examination of the Council’s methods of drug testing teachers and its ‘zero tolerance’ approach to cannabis use. In this context the item did not encourage listeners to use illegal drugs or otherwise undermine law and order....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In June, October and November 2016, Sikh radio station Radio Virsa broadcast four programmes in Punjabi on 107FM. The programmes included host and talkback commentary about a wide range of issues. The Authority received a complaint that these broadcasts contained threatening and coarse language and themes, and offensive statements were made in relation to a number of named individuals in the Sikh community, including the complainant. The Authority found that aspects of these broadcasts were in breach of broadcasting standards. The Authority was particularly concerned that offensive comments were made about named individuals in the local community, which resulted in the individuals’ unfair treatment and, in one instance, a breach of privacy....

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?...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-065:The Warehouse Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-065 PDF467. 48 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-028:Meyrick and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-028 PDF215. 88 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Leighton Smith the host discussed Wicked Campers with a caller and commented, ‘Now I’m interested to know what your reaction is to my suggestion that if you see one of these, you know, if you’re offended by one of these vans, run a screwdriver down through the so-called artwork’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the comments were irresponsible and encouraged listeners to break the law. It did not consider Mr Smith was seriously advocating damaging the campervans or that listeners would have been incited to commit unlawful acts, taking into account the target audience and the nature of the programme....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...