Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989TVNZ News and Close Up – four items allegedly in breach of broadcasting standards FindingsAuthority declines to determine complaints on the basis they are frivolous and trivial in accordance with section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 authorises this Authority to decline to determine a complaint which has been referred to it if it considers: (a) that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or trivial; or (b) that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. [2] We see no reason to depart from the ordinary meaning of the words frivolous, vexatious or trivial. We consider that frivolous means not serious or sensible, or even silly....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – showed characters smoking cigarettes and dropping their cigarette butts on the ground – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and law and order standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 2 (law and order) – footage of characters smoking and dropping cigarette butts on the ground would not have offended most viewers and did not encourage viewers to break the law – acceptable in context and relevant to developing storyline – behaviour not portrayed as desirable – well within broadcaster’s right to employ dramatic licence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Shortland Street showed two characters smoking cigarettes before dropping their cigarette butts on the ground. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on 19 April 2013....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-100:Minister of Women's Affairs (Hon Jenny Shipley) and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-100 PDF635. 3 KB...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a broadcast on the criticism faced by London Police following their actions in stopping a vigil for murdered woman Sarah Everard, as participants were not abiding by the COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time. The Authority found the item was not unfair to the London Police Chief or the London Police. It did not actively encourage non-compliance or seriously undermine law and order. The balance standard was not applicable as the item did not amount to a ‘discussion’. Not Upheld: Fairness, Law and Order, Balance...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-025 Dated the 20th day of March 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by L. CARTER of Rotorua Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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…...

Complaint The Edge – radio announcer challenged two men to run naked down a main street – offensive behaviour – incited breach of law FindingsPrinciple 2 – no evidence that broadcaster encouraged disrespect for law – no upholdThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryAn announcer on The Edge challenged two men to run naked down a main street in Queenstown. The event was broadcast live on The Edge (a radio network) at about 7. 30am on 25 May 2001. Inspector Phil Jones, the Area Controller for the Otago Rural Police in Queenstown, complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the behaviour which he said had been "incited" by the announcer, was "unacceptable". The RadioWorks did not uphold the complaint. It disagreed that the radio station incited the participants, and maintained that the incident was intended to be humorous and not distressing to the public....

ComplaintRadio Waatea – Liberation Talkback – caller advocated "illegal use of armed force" by Maori to achieve political goals – incitement – host supported caller’s view Findings(1) Principle 8 – warning (2) Principle 2 – broadcaster did not encourage breaking the law – no uphold (3) Principle 4 – talkback format allowed reasonable opportunity to present significant views on issues discussed – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Liberation Talkback was broadcast on Radio Waatea between 8. 00pm and 11. 00pm on 15 October 2001. Liberation Talkback is a talkback programme broadcast weekly on Radio Waatea. [2] R D Hutchins complained to Radio Waatea, a radio station broadcast by UMA Broadcasting Ltd (the broadcaster), that a caller to the programme had said "if it means getting the gun, I don’t care"....

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…...

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....

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(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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on Story showed presenter Heather du Plessis-Allan purportedly exposing a loophole in New Zealand’s gun laws by falsifying a mail-order form and obtaining a firearm from a gun dealer without verifying that she held a gun licence. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the broadcast encouraged viewers to break the law. The item carried public interest, it was clearly meant to discourage flouting of gun laws rather than encourage illegal activity and the Police Association commended Story for exposing the issue. Not Upheld: Law and Order   Introduction [1] An item on Story showed presenter Heather du Plessis-Allan allegedly exposing a loophole in New Zealand’s gun laws. She falsified a mail-order form and obtained a firearm from a gun dealer without verifying that she held a gun licence....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under several standards in relation to a segment on The Project. In the broadcast, comedian Justine Smith joked about throwing a half-eaten apple at anti-abortion protesters. The complainants alleged the segment was offensive, promoted violence and criminal activity, and discriminated against anti-abortion protesters. The Authority found that while the statements may have been offensive to some – in the context of the broadcast as a whole, taking into account audience expectations of the show, and the lack of any specific call to act – the alleged harm caused by the broadcast did not reach the thresholds required to restrict the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression under any of the nominated standards. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Violence, Law and Order, and Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 127/94 Decision No: 128/94 Decision No: 129/94 Decision No: 130/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TREVOR MALLARD MP and VALERIE L J GREHAN of Wainuiomata and WAINUIOMATA COMMUNITY BOARD and DENNIS J KEALL of Wainuiomata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint alleging Midday Report breached the balance, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and law and order standards. The Authority found in all the circumstances the complaint should not be determined as it amounted to the complainant’s personal preferences regarding matters of editorial discretion. Declined to determine (section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, in all the circumstances): Balance, Accuracy, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Law and Order...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-045:Millen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-045 PDF604. 13 KB...

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...

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about a Newshub Live at 6pm item on the Paralympics depicting a hug between sisters Lisa Adams and Dame Valerie Adams. The complaint was that the broadcast breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests, and law and order standards as the Paralympics occurred amid the COVID-19 pandemic, whilst various physical distancing restrictions were in force. The Authority found the item did not breach the standards specified as it did not encourage non-compliance with COVID-19 restrictions, nor was it likely to cause widespread undue offence, or harm to children watching. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Children’s Interests, Law and Order...