Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Morning Pirates – hosts discussed the act of people photocopying their naked bottoms on the office photocopier – one of the hosts photocopied his bottom on the radio station's photocopying machine and encouraged listeners to do the same – host invited listeners to exchange photocopies with him via facsimile – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and responsible programming Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage listeners to break the law or otherwise promote, glamorise or condone criminal activity – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – hosts' actions were inoffensive and harmless – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During The Morning Pirates breakfast show, broadcast on Radio Hauraki at 7....

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…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Seven Sharp reported the predictions of a climate scientist about the impacts of climate change on New Zealand by the year 2100, and included the opinion of a climate change health expert about the health risks associated with the predicted changes. The complainant argued that the item was misleading and unbalanced because the claims were presented as ‘fact’ and ‘inevitable’ rather than as ‘extreme projections’. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item was inaccurate, as it clearly consisted of opinion and predictions, and was not presented as fact....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-012:Tregurtha and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-012 PDF394. 96 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-168 Decision No: 1996-169 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR JOHN READ of Auckland and NEW ZEALAND PSYCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY INC. Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-066 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PHILLIP SMITS of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

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?...

Tapu Misa declared a conflict and did not take part in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fijian Language Programme – interview with Frank Bainimarama discussing situation in Fiji – Mr Bainimarama portrayed situation in Fiji as cheerful and normal – allegedly in breach of balance and social responsibility standardsFindings Principle 7 (social responsibility) – matters raised by complainant were ones of editorial discretion – not upheldPrinciple 4 (balance) – broadcaster upheld balance complaint – action taken insufficient – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] An item broadcast on Niu FM during its Fijian Language Programme on 15 December 2006 contained an interview with Commander Frank Bainimarama....

Summary An item reporting on the result of a One Network News/Colmar Brunton political poll was broadcast on One Network News on TV One 21 June 1999 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm. Mr Helm complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was misleading and inaccurate in its interpretation of the poll results. He said that the item incorrectly linked voter support to the potential composition of a future Parliament. He said that the interpretation was based on a wrong assumption that the poll results, if reflected in a general election, would lead to proportional, or very nearly proportional, representation. TVNZ responded that the item was an accurate indication of political preferences at the time of polling....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 61/95 Dated the 6th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MARION HANCOCK of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

Complaint60 Minutes – item on Ritalin – offensive – irresponsible – failed to respect principles of law – likely to place children at riskFindings(1) Standard G5 – no disrespect for law evidenced – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – public interest – current affairs – audience expectations unlikely to have been exceeded – no uphold (3) Standard G12 – not relevant – no uphold (4) Standard G16 – public interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on the black market for the prescription drug Ritalin was broadcast on 60 Minutes on TV One on 11 June 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. On behalf of ADHD. org....

ComplaintOmission to broadcast news about an Invercargill businessman – unbalanced – deceptive programming practice FindingsComplaint about omission to broadcast – editorial judgement – decline to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Brent Procter complained that local news bulletins on Foveaux Radio had failed to cover the activities of Matthew Gould, 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, notably during the period of newsworthiness, between 6 March and 10 March 2000. The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster of Foveaux Radio, responded that it had taken note of Mr Procter’s thoughts and comments on the matter and would keep them in mind for future consultation with news providers....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – presenter referred to Tip Top ice cream competition and informed viewers how to enter – allegedly in breach of responsible programming and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 8 (responsible programming) – segment did not threaten objectives behind “responsible programming” – promotions of this nature are now commonplace – Broadcasting Act and standards as written do not contemplate this type of segment or give authority to address these issues – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcast was not aimed at children and would not have disturbed or alarmed any children who were watching, in the manner envisaged by the standard – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] During a segment on Breakfast, the presenter referred to a ‘Feel Tip Top Giveaway’ competition....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-064 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOWELANCO (NZ) LIMITED of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Criminal Minds – two versions of the promo were broadcast – both versions referred to a “prolific serial killer” and showed a person’s throat being drawn on with a blue pen – one referred to the serial killer removing the limbs of his victims while they were alive and showed a body part lying in the desert – allegedly in breach of standards of programme classification, children’s interests, and violence Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promos contained adult themes – both versions were deserving of a higher classification – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – promos incorrectly classified and contained gruesome adult themes – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintOne News – 4, 5, 10 August – NZRFU receptionist advised caller of the availability of scalped tickets – receptionist described as a "go-between" and later as "at the centre" of the scam – covert recording of telephone conversation – inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G4 – not unfair to use covert call given public interest – no uphold; unfair not to broadcast full summary of covert call – uphold Standards G7, G13, G19 – subsumed OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Following up on information received, a TVNZ journalist, without identifying himself, telephoned the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRFU) to ask about the availability of a ticket for a forthcoming test match. The call was recorded covertly....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Broadcast on Morning Report on National Radio – referred to MP Richard Prebble’s nickname “mad dog” – allegedly unfair, inaccurate and contrary to children’s interests. FindingsPrinciple 5 (fairness) – simple reference to widely known nickname not unfair to Mr Prebble – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – item accurate – not upheld Principle 7 (children’s interests) – nothing to indicate item injurious to children listening – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Morning Report, broadcast on National Radio on 28 April contained an item about the resignation of Richard Prebble as leader of the ACT party and the subsequent contest for the leadership....

Summary An exchange on The Rock included a conversation between the announcer and an actor portraying a fictitious Australian character called Darryl Brock, during which Darryl Brock asked the announcer whether a woman announcer had "big tits" and if "she bang[ed] like a shithouse door in the wind". The exchange was broadcast at around 9. 00am on 25 November 1999. K E Broad complained to The RadioWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, that the language used was offensive and totally unacceptable, and that children could have heard it because of the time of the broadcast. The RadioWorks responded that the reference to the woman having "big tits" was "perhaps a little raunchy", but was a slang expression and did not contravene broadcasting standards. As to the second remark, the RadioWorks said that the word "shithouse" was also slang and that this remark did not contravene broadcasting standards either....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – exchange between reporter and Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen, had been recorded prior to a scheduled interview – allegedly in breach of Dr Cullen’s privacy, unfair, and in breach of law and order and programme information standardsFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – standard has no application on this occasion – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – no private facts – no interest in solitude and seclusion – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Dr Cullen – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed under Standard 6This headnote does not form part of the decision....