Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – story explored the craze surrounding imitations of Jackass movies involving dangerous stunts and an internet site that was profiting from it – footage of stunts shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and law and order standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – shocking footage was appropriate given the focus of the programme – warning was adequate – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item was a cautionary tale – did not encourage or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

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…...

SummaryA news item broadcast on TV3 on 29 June 1998 between 6. 00–7. 00pm summarised matters raised in a 20/20 programme broadcast the previous evening relating to the dismissal of the choirmaster at St Paul’s Cathedral in Dunedin. It was reported that the choir had returned to the Cathedral to demand the resignation of their Dean. Mr Greet and Mr Barnett complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced, unfair and inaccurate. TV3 responded that it was satisfied its report was a fair and accurate summary of the developments in the controversy surrounding the dismissal of the choirmaster which had been the subject of the 20/20 item the previous evening. It declined to uphold the complaints. Dissatisfied with TV3’s decision, Mr Greet and Mr Barnett referred their complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter held a highlighter to his nose and sniffed it – commented that highlighters are not as good as permanent markers for sniffing – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – sniffing permanent markers is not illegal – comments intended to be humorous – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – children unlikely to be watching Breakfast and not likely to be disturbed or alarmed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One on Thursday 10 April 2008, the following discussion took place between the programme’s presenters Paul Henry and Pippa Wetzell at approximately 8. 05am: Paul: What did we do before highlighters? They are so cool. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – live telephone interview with Napier resident watching police trying to deal with an armed man barricaded inside a house and who had been shooting at police – host questioned resident about what he could see and hear and what the police were doing – allegedly in breach of law and order standard Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – information provided by interviewee would not have assisted the armed man – no evidence that the information disclosed affected the maintenance of law and order – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a segment on Checkpoint, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National at 5....

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...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-058 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT D of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News– item reported on the Warriors rugby league team’s anti-bullying campaign – included video footage of high school students fighting – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violenceFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – introduction clearly signposted that item contained violent material – 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 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

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…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During MORE FM Breakfast the hosts discussed ‘age-appropriate’ movies and invited callers to phone in and tell them what movies they watched ‘before they should have’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the programme’s treatment of ‘underage viewing’ breached the law and order standard. Personal anecdotes were standard fare for breakfast radio shows, and reasonable listeners would not have taken the programme as a serious encouragement to break the law or to allow young children to watch unsuitable films. Not Upheld: Law and OrderIntroduction[1] During MORE FM Breakfast the hosts talked about the animated film Frozen, and one host commented he did not think the film was targeted at ‘middle-aged men’....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-034 Dated the 21st day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN LOWE of Oakura Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Skins – programme about a group of teenagers in Britain – showed teenagers drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and taking drugs – contained sexual material, nudity, violence and coarse language – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming, children’s interests, violence and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO9....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was portrayed as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid. The Authority upheld a complaint that the complainant was treated unfairly and that key facts about his professional conduct were misrepresented. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the broadcast also breached a number of additional standards. Upheld: Fairness, AccuracyNot Upheld: Privacy, Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingOrder: Section 16(4) costs to the Crown $1,500Introduction[1] In an episode of The Block NZ: Villa Wars, the complainant was featured as a ‘temperamental European tiler’ who allegedly wanted to be paid in advance and went ‘AWOL’ when he was not paid....

Complaint60 Minutes – "Double Lives" – documentary about alleged "double lives" of Fiji Red Cross Director John Scott and New Zealand partner Gregory Scrivener, murdered in Suva in July 2001 – unsubstantiated allegations about drug abuse and sex abuse – breach of standards relating to the maintenance of law and order; the privacy of the individual; balance, fairness and accuracy; the protection of children; and discrimination FindingsSection 4(1)(c) – privacy – individuals deceased – family consented – no uphold Standards G1 and G21 – no evidence of inaccuracies – no uphold G4 – deceased individuals – not applicable – no evidence family dealt with unfairly – no uphold G5 – sub judice rule does not apply to overseas trial – no risk of prejudice because of delay anyway – no disrespect to principles of law – no uphold G6 – majority – balance achieved during period of current interest as story slow in breaking –…...

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"....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Media 7 – discussed the Authority’s decision relating to TV3 investigation Let Us Spray and whether the programme should still have been awarded “investigation of the year” at the Qantas Media Awards – allegedly in breach of law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and discrimination and denigration Findings Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme discussed the Authority’s decision – not a controversial issue of public importance to which the standard applied – appropriate viewpoints were sought and presented – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – most of the comments complained about were clearly opinion – other inaccuracies alleged were not material points of fact to which Standard 5 applied – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – community of Paritutu not a person or organisation…...