Search Rapua

SummaryThe New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd was the subject of items on Holmes broadcast at 7. 00pm on 15 and 16 December 1998. The item on the 15th suggested that some students had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the school’s programme. It also included an interview with Ms Marilyn Hudson, the School’s Managing Director. The item on the 16th included comments from other dissatisfied past and present students and their families, and an interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about both items. She said that the first item contained inaccuracies, and was unbalanced, misleading and unfair both to her and the School. The second item, Ms Hudson complained, also contained some inaccuracies, and again was unbalanced, misleading and unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The Rock – stunt in which announcers let off fireworks to test “Jimmy’s ability to dodge fireworks” – allegedly in breach of law and order and social responsibility standardsFindings Principle 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Principle 7Principle 7 (social responsibility) – stunt was socially irresponsible – did not consider effects on child listeners – hosts’ manner trivialised the potential danger of aiming fireworks at another person – upheldOrder Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] In a segment called “Do Stuff to Jimmy” on The Rock, broadcast at approximately 8. 15am on 20 October 2006, the announcers commented on the recent call to ban fireworks for public sale....

ComplaintBreakfast session – Lakes FM – skit about felling trees for runway extension in Rotorua – bad taste – unbalanced – irresponsibleFindingsPrinciple 1 – sensitive issue, but not precluded from satirical treatment – no uphold Principle 2 – no uphold Principle 4 – other viewpoints aired – no uphold Principle 7 – humour – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary In a broadcast on Lakes FM on 19 September 2000 at about 7. 20am, two breakfast session hosts joked about felling trees to enable the runway at Rotorua airport to be extended. The background noises included the sound of chainsaws. Ngati Rangiteaorere, the owners of a stand of trees adjacent to the airport, complained through their solicitors to Lakes FM about the broadcast....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-166 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOSH MOORE of Tokoroa Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 New Zealand First Election Advertisement – child stated, “My mum and dad are voting for New Zealand First. They say that Winston will give us a fair go” – allegedly in breach of responsible programming standardFindings Standard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standard 8 (responsible programming) of the Radio Code – advertisement broadcast in robust political environment during lead-up to the election – reasonable listeners would understand that children are under the legal age to vote – complaint does not raise any issues of broadcasting standards which warrant our consideration – complaint frivolous and trivial – decline to determine under section 11(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-052:Edwards and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-052 PDF263. 01 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The host of the Larry Williams Drive Show and a political editor discussed a protest that had taken place in response to the release of the Government’s budget. The host expressed his disapproval of the protestors and made comments about how he thought they should be dealt with, for example saying fire trucks cornering them from either end of the street. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that his comments breached standards. The host was clearly expressing his personal opinion, and the political editor countered the comments, noting people living in a democracy are entitled to protest....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the murder mystery series Midsomer Murders depicted several murders, including a man being shot with a bow and arrow and a woman being shot with a gun. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the murder scenes showed realistic violence likely to disturb children. The murder scenes were relatively innocuous in context and did not exceed the programme's PGR classification. Not Upheld: Responsible Programming, Children's InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of the murder mystery series Midsomer Murders focused on conflicts between the beneficiaries of a will which resulted in several murders, including a man who was shot with a bow and arrow and a woman who was shot with a gun. [2] Beverley Larsen complained that the broadcast depicted 'several graphic murder scenes. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 126/95 Dated the 9th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PAUL McBRIDE of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Promo for Liam – promo for AO-classified film broadcast during G-rated cooking show – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 8 (responsible programming) and Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promo was correctly classified – broadcaster adequately considered interests of child viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for the AO-rated film Liam was broadcast on TV One on Thursday 18 November 2010 during Masterchef Australia, a reality cooking show which was rated G and screened at 4. 55pm. The 33-second promo consisted of a montage of scenes involving a young boy....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a panel discussion on the Mike Hosking Breakfast show about the government’s funding of America’s Cup campaigners, one of the panellists said ‘fucking’. She immediately apologised for the slip-up, and the other participants rebuked her in a light-hearted manner. The broadcaster upheld the complaint and counselled the panellist. The Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. It noted the comment was made during a legitimate discussion about a matter of public interest, and all of the participants acknowledged at the time that the swearing was inappropriate....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-183 Decision No: 1996-184 Decision No: 1996-185 Dated the 17th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by BOB ATKINSON of Nelson and EVAN DAVIES of Hamilton and MARIA DOVE of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES 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....

ComplaintThe Waterboy promo – nudity – incorrect classification – broadcaster not mindful of effect of broadcast on children Findings Standard G2 –context – no uphold Standard G8 – G rating correct – no uphold Standard G12 – correct classification and time of broadcast – no uphold; standard G22 – G rating correct – no uphold Standard G24 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the movie The Waterboy was broadcast on TV3 on 19 October 2001 at 6. 40pm, during a broadcast of 3 News. [2] Michael Hooker complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the promo showed one of the characters featured in the movie "pull[ing] down his trousers and exposing his buttocks". [3] TV3 declined to uphold the complaint....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – offensive language – offensive behaviour – broadcasts inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – broadcasts unsuitable for children Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) 22 November broadcast – 6. 31am – Principle 1 – uphold (3) 22 November broadcast – 6. 39am – no uphold (4) 23 November broadcast – 6. 39am – Principle 1 – uphold (5) 26 November broadcast – 7. 40am – Principle 1 – uphold – Principle 7 and Guideline 7b – uphold (6) 27 November broadcast – 6. 35am – action taken insufficient – uphold (7) 30 November broadcast – 6. 36am – action taken insufficient – uphold (8) 6 December broadcast – 6. 19am – no uphold OrderTotal costs to the Crown in the sum of $3,000Cross-references: 2001-071–084; 2001-138–204 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989News item about double homicide – local resident reported as saying he knew who did it and intended to pay murderer a visit – announcer commented “wouldn’t that make a cool movie, like Kill Bill” – allegedly irresponsibleFindingsPrinciple 7 (social responsibility) – thoughtless comment by announcer minimised by news reader’s critical response – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A news item referred to a double homicide in Feilding and mentioned the response from a local resident. The resident was reported as saying he knew who was responsible, owned two rifles, and intended to “pay some people a visit”. The item added that he had been warned by the police not to take vigilante action. The item was broadcast on 95bfm at 9. 00am on 7 June 2005....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-042:Talbot and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-042 PDF695. 01 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A segment on Breakfast featured an interview with the chair of the Eating Disorders Association, who discussed that some individuals may mask eating disorders with particular 'fad diets'. Although the chair did not specifically mention veganism, banners shown on-screen during the segment read, 'Fears teens use veganism to restrict food intake' and 'Fears people use veganism to restrict food intake'. The Authority did not uphold complaints that the banners were misleading by suggesting veganism was an eating disorder and encouraged bullying of vegans. Viewers would not have been misled by the broadcast as a whole or encouraged to bully vegans. In any case, vegans are not a section of the community to which the discrimination and denigration standard applies....