Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989APNA talkback – interview with managing director of Moshims Discount House Ltd about allegations that expired food items were sent as aid to flood victims in Fiji – after interview, a listener phoned in alleging that Discount House sold food that had passed its expiry date – allegedly in breach of accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – broadcast not a factual programme or current affairs – comprised of opinion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond to claims – complainant and his company treated fairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 57/94 Dated the 26th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN S WERRY of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

SummaryPreparations were proceeding for an early election in April 1999, according to the promo for news items broadcast on TV One at about 9. 30pm on 19 November 1998. In the item on Tonight it was reported that preparations were under way for the possibility of an early election. Mrs Barker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo was an inaccurate summary of the item to follow, as it failed to clarify that the preparations were being made only on the basis that there was a possibility of an early election. She argued that the promo was inaccurate, unreliable and a distortion of the item which followed. TVNZ responded that both the promo and the item were accurate in reporting that in the Electoral Office, planning was under way for an early election....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Bootylicious – PGR promo – broadcast during One News between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm – crass – objectified women’s bodies – timing of promo unsuitable for childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – promo for programme on recent fashion fad – did not threaten current norms of decency and taste – not upheld Standard 7 (appropriate classification) – promo classified “PGR News” – PGR appropriate classification – not upheld Standard 7 (compliance with classification band) and Guideline 7b – One News (although itself unclassified) is in G time-band – PGR promo did not comply with classification band – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster considered children’s interests in rating promo PGR – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Four promos broadcast prior to 8. 30pm – three for programme Bad Girls – one for quiz show How Normal Are You? – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, programme classification, children’s interests and violenceFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – Bad Girls – material suitable to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You? – material suitable to be rated G – not upheld by majority Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Bad Girls – material appropriate to be rated PGR – not upheld – How Normal Are You?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Hotel Babylon – sex scene broadcast one minute after the Adults Only watershed – broadcaster upheld complaint under three standards – action taken allegedly insufficient Findings Standards 1 (good taste and decency), 7 (programme classification) and 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster upheld complaint under three standards and counselled appraiser – action taken sufficient This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Hotel Babylon, a BBC drama following the lives of workers at a five-star hotel, was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Wednesday 1 October 2008. The programme’s introductory sequence at 8. 31pm included a five-second scene showing a couple having sex. No breasts or genitals were shown, and, although the woman’s naked back could be seen as she straddled a man in bed, her buttocks were covered with a sheet....

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....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1B)(b)(ii) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter deliberately mispronounced the name of Chief Minister of Delhi, Sheila Dikshit – stated that “Dick Shit” was “so appropriate because she’s Indian, so she would be dick in shit, wouldn’t she” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standards 1, 6 and 7 – action taken allegedly insufficient FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 6 (fairness) and 7 (discrimination and denigration) – serious breach of broadcasting standards – action taken by broadcaster insufficient – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – Breakfast was an unclassified news and current affairs programme – comments would not have alarmed or distressed viewers – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $3,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form…...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported on man who faced losing two of his fingers if he chose to continue smoking cigarettes – presenter jokingly asked man if he wanted a cigarette – presenter’s comments allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 8 (responsible programming) – presenter’s offer of a cigarette was hypothetical and intended to highlight the man’s triumph in giving up smoking – not intended to “taunt” the man – man was a willing participant and took the comments with good humour – comments would not have offended or distressed most viewers – man treated fairly – broadcast not socially irresponsible – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to determine a complaint that it was inappropriate for RNZ to use Forsyth Barr and First NZ Capital as business advisors and suppliers of business news for its 'Market Update' segment on Checkpoint. RNZ's choice of business advisors is a matter of editorial discretion rather than broadcasting standards. The complainant has previously made similar complaints and been warned that further similar complaints would be unlikely to be determined in future. Accordingly the Authority declined to determine the present complaint on the basis it was frivolous and vexatious. Declined to Determine: Law and Order, Fairness, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] Allan Golden complained that Forsyth Barr and First NZ Capital were not suitable for use as business advisors and suppliers of business news on Radio New Zealand's 'Market Update' segment of Checkpoint....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 22/95 Dated the 12th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WENDY SHEPHERD of Levin Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 64/95 Decision No: 65/95 Dated the 20th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MEGAVITAMIN LABORATORIES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED and DR WARREN STEWART of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R A Barraclough Co-opted member...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Checkpoint – report stated that Queenstown may face an energy crisis in the future – the words electricity, energy and power were used interchangeably – allegedly in breach of balance, fairness, accuracy and social responsibility standards Findings Principle 6 (accuracy) – item was not deceptive – listeners would not have been misled – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – standard did not apply because the item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – standard did not apply – not upheld Principle 7 (social responsibility) – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – interview with Professor Richard Dawkins about his views on religious faith – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on Professor Dawkins’ views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – guideline 7a exception for legitimate expression of opinion – comments did not contain sufficient invective to encourage denigration or discrimination – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme would not have caused panic, alarm or undue distress – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-102 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by CHRIS NORMAN of Wellington Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LTD J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary There was a tense debate at the Annual General Meeting of the Hero Trust, according to an item on Queer Nation broadcast on TV2 at 11. 00pm on 5 October 1999. The meeting rejected a proposal to wind up the Trust, and a new Board was elected, the report continued. Several people who had been present at the meeting were interviewed. Kat Jackson of Auckland complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the interview with a woman who had attended the meeting implied that she had the authority and knowledge to speak on behalf of the Trust. Ms Jackson said that the woman had unsuccessfully stood for a position on the Trust and was not empowered to speak on its behalf. She claimed that the broadcast of the interview without mention of this fact resulted in the item being unbalanced and partial....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Larry Williams Drive Show – host interviewed director of the Middle East Forum about his concerns with the growing Muslim population in Europe – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – item focused on interviewee’s views – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – comments conveyed interviewee’s personal opinion – no discrimination or denigration – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify any alleged inaccuracies or provide any evidence of inaccuracy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individual or organisation taking part or referred to treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – interview would not have alarmed or…...

ComplaintOmission to broadcast news about Invercargill businessman – unbalanced – deceptive programming practiceFindingsComplaint about omission to broadcast – editorial judgement – decline to determineThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryBrent Procter complained that local news bulletins on Newstalk ZB and Classic Hits Invercargill had failed to cover the activities of an Invercargill businessman who had been charged with fraud. He contended that in this omission the broadcaster had failed to show balance and had used deceptive programming practice in its broadcasts during the period of newsworthiness, notably between 6 March and 10 March 2000. The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster, responded for both stations that broadcasting standards were not breached as the story in question had not been broadcast. Dissatisfied with TRN’s response, Mr Procter referred the complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....