Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-105 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by M D STEMSON of Coromandel Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – items asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag – showed brief visual overview of New Zealand flags – allegedly in breach of standards relating to controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – complainant’s concerns are matters of personal preference and editorial discretion – complaint frivolous and vexatious – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] Items broadcast on Campbell Live on TV3 at 7pm on 22 and 23 September 2011, asked viewers for their opinions on changing the New Zealand flag, which had been a topic of discussion during the Rugby World Cup....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-107:Fudakowski and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-107 PDF483. 7 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Native Affairs reported on 'jailed Northland farmer, Allan Titford, and his fight with Te Roroa', and his supporters. The Authority did not uphold Kerry Bolton's complaint that the action taken by Māori TV, having upheld his complaint that it was inaccurate to accuse him of being a 'Titford supporter', was insufficient. This was a matter of interpretation and opinion that could not be conclusively assessed as accurate or inaccurate. The Authority also declined to uphold an additional complaint that the report was misleading and unfair. The report was based on the opinions of the interviewees and was legitimately presented from a Māori perspective. It was not necessary to present alternative views on Mr Titford's guilt or innocence, and no participant was treated unfairly....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-058 Dated the 20th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ANN GILLANDERS of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-165 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER LORD of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint Coromandel FM – news item inaccurately reported that fire fighter was charged with drunk driving causing death – privacy of fire fighter Findings (1) Unsatisfactory complaints procedure – warning (2) Principle 8 – relevant (3) Privacy Principles (i) and (ii)– facts inaccurate, not private – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A news story broadcast more than once during the morning of 11 April 2000 on Coromandel FM reported that a named Morrinsville fire fighter had been charged with drunk driving causing death. MM, the fire fighter’s wife, complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached the fire fighter’s privacy by disclosing incorrect information about the offence he had been charged with. MM reported that the man had in fact been charged with careless driving causing death....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Without a Trace – promo showed a woman interrogating a beaten man, who was sitting on a chair, his hands tied and bleeding – woman aimed a nail gun at the man’s groin and stated “…I will nail more than your hand to the chair” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme classification, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not condone, promote or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo correctly classified as PGR – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – majority agreed that the broadcaster adequately considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – promo was brief – did not contain explicit violence – majority considered broadcaster exercised…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – selection of items to include in news programmes is a matter of editorial discretion – complainant did not specify which parts of the programme breached standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Tuesday 29 June 2010. Complaint [2] River Tucker complained to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that “the lack of any in-depth reporting into issues that are important to New Zealanders” on 3 News breached standards relating to the discussion of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of Environment Matters discussed their views and opinions which were critical of conventional medicine and medical professionals. The Authority declined to uphold the complaint that the broadcast was unbalanced, irresponsible and denigrated medical professionals. Environment Matters was not a factual programme to which the balance standard applied and the hosts were clearly expressing their personal views so listeners would not have been unduly alarmed or distressed. Medical professionals are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Responsible Programming, Discrimination and DenigrationIntroduction[1] During a programme called Environment Matters the hosts discussed a number of topics and made numerous comments that were heavily critical of conventional medicine and medical professionals....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Easy Mix – host made comments about smacking a child – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – newsreader made it clear that smacking children was illegal – broadcaster was sufficiently mindful of the effect the programme’s content would have on children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At approximately 7. 30am on Wednesday 16 June 2010 on the radio station Easy Mix, the presenter and newsreader had a brief discussion....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reported that a man had been found guilty of murdering another man then eating parts of the murdered man’s body – provided details of the man's cannibalistic act – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violence Findings Standard 10 (violence) – item contained graphic and violent details of a murder and cannibalism – required a specific warning – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster failed to adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of children's interests and violence No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintThe Rock – 14 complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – denigration of women – discrimination against women – unsuitable for children Findings in Part I of DecisionFive complaints upheld as breaches of Principle 1; three complaints upheld as breaches of Principle 1 and Principle 7; one complaint upheld on basis that action taken insufficient Part I interim decision issued – submissions on penalty called for Submissions on PenaltySubstantive points made by The RadioWorks – "relevant submission" under section 10(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 RadioWorks’ SubmissionBroadcasting Standards Authority in breach of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – insufficient weight given to freedom of expression – Authority’s approach inconsistent with Court of Appeal’s Moonen decision Broadcasting Act – broadcasters responsible for maintaining standards – Radio Code of Broadcasting Practice developed by broadcasters and approved by Authority Bill of Rights – applies to Authority – applies…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Hauraki Amped – promotion for the chance to win a trip to Bangkok with reference to the film The Hangover Part II – stated “Hauraki’s going to send you and two mates to get your own hangover in Thailand” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to responsible programming and liquor FindingsStandard 9 (liquor) – brief reference to getting a “hangover” clearly related to The Hangover Part II film – did not amount to liquor promotion – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – comment acceptable in light of target audience – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Hauraki Amped, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 11am on Sunday 1 May 2011, included an item promoting the chance to win a trip to Bangkok, the setting for the film The Hangover Part II....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the broadcast contained inaccurate, unfair and unbalanced information and breached the privacy of Trunk Property's director. The item was materially accurate, was not unfair to Trunk Property or its director and did not breach the director's privacy. Trunk Property was given a reasonable opportunity to comment on the story and its response was fairly presented in the item. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming Introduction [1] 3 News covered a story about Trunk Property Ltd, which allegedly was entering into unlawful subletting arrangements with tenants in Auckland....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Shortland Street showed the death of a 14-year-old character, Pixie. Pixie had apparently been undergoing chemotherapy and was hospitalised for pneumonia. At the end of the episode, Pixie’s condition rapidly deteriorated and she died. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item should have been preceded by a warning because children could have been disturbed and upset by the content. Shortland Street is rated PGR and frequently features adult themes. While the fictional depiction of a child’s death was potentially upsetting, it was not outside audience expectations and parents had an opportunity to exercise discretion. Not Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Shortland Street showed the death of 14-year-old character Pixie. Pixie had apparently been undergoing chemotherapy and had contracted pneumonia....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] Two teams of comedians on 7 Days made comments about the complainant, a Christchurch City Council candidate who had been in the news for exposing people who visited an illegal brothel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was unfair. The complainant willingly put himself in the public eye, and it was reasonable to expect scrutiny. The comedy genre of the programme, and the tone of the comments, indicated this was not intended as a personal attack on the complainant, or to be informative, but was purely for the purpose of entertainment and humour, so potential harm to the complainant was minimal....