Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Simulcast by broadcasters of the Good Vibrations Carnival at Cooper’s Beach between 1pm and 5pm Saturday 15 April 2006 – carnival organised as community response to Dr Neil Benson’s plan to open a brothel at Cooper’s Beach – broadcast included comments critical of brothel proposal and extracts critical of the proposal from the meeting at Mangonui Town Hall organised to discuss brothel proposal – broadcasts allegedly in breach of privacy, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsDoubtless Bay Family RadioPrinciple 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – approach taken in broadcast clearly explained and reasonable opportunities given for other significant points of view – not upheldPrinciple 5 (fairness) – Bensons not dealt with unfairly – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheldPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – brothel owners not denigrated or discriminated against – not upheldFar…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – report on the sale of horse meat for human consumption that had been processed as pet food – included undercover investigation – reporter shown speaking with the owner of pet food factory allegedly supplying horse meat – reporter told to leave the property but continued to ask questions – allegedly in breach of law and order Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – reporter acted in a professional and appropriate manner – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary An American documentary entitled Scared Straight – 20 Years On was broadcast by TV3 on 12 July 1999 at 8. 30pm. It examined a rehabilitation programme for youthful offenders which was based on behaviour modification. The programme was trialled in the 1970s, and 20 years later some of those participants were asked about their experiences on the course and how they had lived their lives since then. James Whitham complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme condoned violence and encouraged intimidating and threatening behaviour. He contended that it had breached a number of broadcasting standards. TV3 responded by noting that the behaviour modification programme had been used successfully in America to help teenage offenders. In the context of an AO programme, which had been preceded by a verbal and written warning relating to language, TV3 maintained that no standards had been breached....

ComplaintAlly McBeal – drama – male applicants for law practice required to take off shirts – discrimination against men – sexual harassment in the workplace – inconsistent with maintenance of law and order Findings(1) Standard G13 – no discrimination or denigration – legitimate dramatic work – no uphold (2) Section 4(1)(b) – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Ally McBeal was broadcast on TV2 on 5 July 2000 at 8. 30pm. A sequence in the programme featured two women interviewing male applicants for a position in a legal practice. The applicants were asked to remove their shirts during the interview process. S Smith complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the sequence represented "illegal" sexual harassment of the men involved, and encouraged discrimination against men....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989X105FM – hosts were talking to a man as he attempted to enter the grounds of Premier House where a barbeque for Prince William was about to take place – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and law and order FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcast did not encourage, promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At around 7pm on X105FM on 18 January 2010, one of the station’s employees, Warwick Slow, gained entry to Premier House by jumping over the fence, ahead of a barbecue for Prince William....

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(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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News bulletin reported on recent Islamic State activity and showed footage of identified supporters of ISIS and its training camps. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this promoted, encouraged and glamorised terrorism. The news bulletin carried high public interest and was a straightforward report of recent terrorist activity that in no way condoned or glorified this behaviour. Not Upheld: Law and OrderIntroduction[1] A ONE News bulletin reported on recent Islamic State activity and showed footage of identified supporters of ISIS and its training camps. [2] Anthony Cranston complained that the reporting of ISIS activities promoted, encouraged and glamorised terrorism. [3] The issue is whether the broadcast breached the law and order standard as set out in the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. [4] The item was broadcast on TV ONE on 12 January 2015....

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…...

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – host John Banks – dog control – host said he would shoot a dog ranger about to shoot his dog – offensive – irresponsibleFindings Principle 2 – comment advocated criminal violence – inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – upholdPrinciple 7 – not relevantNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryThe control of dogs was discussed on talkback on Radio Pacific at about 6. 45am on Thursday 7 December 2000. While expressing sympathy for the owners of cats killed by a dog, the host (John Banks) said he would shoot any dog ranger who came onto his property to shoot his dog. Mark Vincent, National President of the New Zealand Institute of Animal Control Officers Inc, complained to The RadioWorks New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments were "disgusting, irresponsible, and distressing"....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-029:O'Neill and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-029 PDF1. 33 MB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Kaho Naa… Pyaar Hai (Say… You’re in Love), a Bollywood romantic thriller film, was broadcast on free-to-air television channel APNA TV between 3pm and 6pm. The film featured action scenes containing violence. The Authority upheld a complaint that the film breached a number of broadcasting standards. The film was broadcast unclassified and with an incorrect programme description, which meant audiences were unable to make an informed viewing choice and were unable to regulate their own, and their children’s, viewing behaviour. The film’s inclusion of violent imagery such as beatings, shoot-outs, murder and dead bodies, and the visual depiction of these acts occurring onscreen, warranted an AO classification and later time of broadcast on free-to-air television....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment of The Project, the presenters discussed whether it was illegal to wear headphones while driving. One of the presenters, a well-known New Zealand comedian, said that he wore headphones while driving ‘because it drowns out the sound of the seatbelt warning’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s comment trivialised an important road safety issue. The segment as a whole carried a positive road safety message, with the presenters sharing their surprise that wearing headphones while driving was not illegal in New Zealand (though distracted drivers could still be charged with careless driving). The comment was clearly intended to be humorous and the reactions of the other presenters balanced the comment and signalled to viewers that wearing your seatbelt was important....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that a Morning Report item stating ‘Protesters occupying Parliament grounds have been calling for reinforcements…’ breached the law and order standard. The Authority found in the context the item did not actively encourage or promote illegal behaviour. In any event, the public interest in the item meant the right to freedom of expression outweighed any potential harm. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

ComplaintOne News: Waitangi Day Special – New Zealand flag used to cover tables where participants sat – disrespectful – intention to dishonour flag FindingsStandard G2 – acceptable visual centrepiece – no uphold Standard G5 – no disrespect for the principles of law – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Maori-Pakeha relationships, the Treaty of Waitangi, and issues of nationhood were debated during a One News: Waitangi Day Special broadcast on TV One at 9. 45pm on 6 February 2001. The participants sat at tables which were covered with the New Zealand flag. Thomas Morgan complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the use of the New Zealand flag as a table cloth was offensive and dishonourable. Arguing that the use of the flag was symbolic and that there was no intention to dishonour it, TVNZ declined to uphold the complaint....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-126:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-126 PDF420. 11 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-060–062:Sharp, Nelson and Christian Heritage Party and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-060, 1992-061, 1992-062 PDF858. 38 KB...

ComplaintInside New Zealand – theft in the workplace – privacy – unfair – police diversion scheme – inaccurateFindingsPrivacy – no identification – no private facts – no uphold Standards G1, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G14, G16 and G19 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An Inside New Zealand documentary entitled "Stealing on the Job" was broadcast on TV3 on 23 August 2000 at 8. 30pm. Hidden camera footage showed employees in various workplaces stealing money from their employers. Promos for the programme were shown in the days preceding the broadcast. R, the father of one of those filmed, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that his son’s privacy had been breached by the broadcast of the programme and the promos for it....