Search Rapua

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-053:Sharp and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-053 PDF274. 67 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Neighbours at War reported on a dispute between the complainant and his neighbour over who was entitled to the letterbox number '1' on their street. The complainant did not take part in the programme, and his neighbour made a number of allegations against him, including that he had sex on his deck, mowed the lawn in his underwear, watched his neighbours in their spa bath, and disturbed them with loud music and security lights. The broadcaster upheld two aspects of his fairness and privacy complaints, but the Authority found that the action taken by the broadcaster to remedy the breaches was insufficient. The programme overall painted the complainant in a very unfavourable light and without his side of the story, which was unfair. The Authority considered publication of this decision was sufficient and did not make any order....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-007:Wright and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-007 PDF444. 29 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-099 Decision No: 1996-100 Dated the 29th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and IN THE MATTER of complaints by THE NATIONAL COLLECTIVE OF RAPE CRISIS AND RELATED GROUPS OF AOTEAROA INC. and RUBY WOODWARD of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV-2010-485-002008 PDF3....

...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item about one man’s experience of having his car wheel clamped – also discussed legality of clamping in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not state as fact that wheel clamping was illegal – premised as opinion of lawyer and judge – impression created for viewers was that the law in this area is confusing – Target made reasonable efforts to ensure item was accurate and did not mislead – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – law relating to wheel clamping complex and uncertain – in order to find a breach of this standard we would have to make a finding as to whether or not clamping is legal – legality (or…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paddle Pop Begins – children’s cartoon – main character’s name was the same as a brand of iceblock – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 8 (responsible programming) – accept that Streets logo and name of character amounted to branding or marketing – however programme was clearly a children’s cartoon rather than an “advertisement” for the purposes of guideline 8d – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – programme would not have alarmed or disturbed child viewers – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of the children’s cartoon Paddle Pop Begins was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 25am on 13 October 2011....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on art piece commissioned for Venice Biennale at cost of $500,000 in public money – interview with Peter Biggs of Creative New Zealand – allegedly unfair to Mr Biggs and misleading/inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – not unbalanced – Mr Biggs was able to present his view – not upheld Standard 5 – item did not suggest that braying toilet was the work to be exhibited – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – Mr Biggs not treated unfairly – as a seasoned media commentator he was able to get his point across – not upheld Standard 8 – not relevant – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintMessiah 2: Vengeance is Mine – promo – programme to be broadcast at 8. 30pm – promo screened during Holmes before 7. 30pm – graphic – inappropriate time slot FindingsStandard 7 – classification appropriate – no uphold Standard 10 – appropriate discretion exercised regarding violence – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for Messiah 2: Vengeance is Mine was broadcast on TV One at 7. 20pm on Friday 11 July 2003 during Holmes. The programme Messiah 2, rated AO, was to be screened at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 July. [2] Annette Ward complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the graphic and disturbing promo had been broadcast at an inappropriate time. [3] In response, TVNZ said that the promo contained no explicit violence and did not include the scenes which had justified the film’s AO rating....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A segment on The Paul Henry Show featured the two presenters discussing recent law changes in Russia that mean it is now illegal to misrepresent Russia’s involvement in World War II, and that people would be fined for swearing on television, in theatre or in films. Mr Henry gave examples of Russian swearwords. There was also a discussion about ‘butt plugs’ made in the likeness of Vladimir Putin and of Paul Henry. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the language, the references to Russia’s involvement in the war, and the discussion about ‘butt plugs’ were offensive. The segment was on late at night and targeted at adults, it was intended to be light-hearted and was consistent with expectations of the show and of Paul Henry....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Morning Report discussed Mark Lundy's retrial for the murder of his wife and daughter. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item incorrectly inferred that Mr Lundy had actively been seeking increased life insurance on the day the murders occurred, and that this was unfair. The item was a straightforward report of the latest evidence given at trial and the item as a whole clarified the meaning of its opening statements. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Fairness, Law and Order, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Morning Report discussed Mark Lundy's retrial for the murder of his wife and daughter. The item reported that 'Mark Lundy's retrial has been told that he tried to increase his family's life insurance just hours before his wife and daughter were hacked to death'....

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-065:The Warehouse Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-065 PDF467. 48 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-006:Society for Promotion of Community Standards and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-006 PDF280. 39 KB...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19897 Days – contained racial comments, coarse language and sexual connotations – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency and responsible programming FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – content amounted to legitimate humour/satire referencing current affairs issues – consistent with expectations of New Zealand comedy programme broadcast at 9. 30pm – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme correctly classified AO and screened at 9. 30pm – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of 7 Days, a comedy programme in which two teams of comedians reviewed the week’s news stories, was broadcast at 9. 30pm on TV3 on Friday 1 April 2011....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Newstalk ZB – talkback host discussed politicians and the use of binding referenda – host compared people who did not agree with the use of binding referenda to a woman meeting a man for the first time and saying "I'm yours, do anything you want with me" – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, discrimination and denigration and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – host's remark did not invoke connotations of rape – not upheld Standards 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – standards not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....