Search

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....

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'....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Prime News – pre-recorded BBC item reported on controversial comments by television presenter Jeremy Clarkson that striking workers should be shot – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – focus of the item was the comment made by Mr Clarkson which caused controversy – therefore not misleading to omit footage of other comments – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – item was a brief snapshot of the response to Mr Clarkson’s comments – did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue that was of public importance in New Zealand – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – higher threshold for finding unfairness to public figure – Mr Clarkson was not treated unfairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers were not disadvantaged or deceived by the clip of Mr Clarkson’s comments – not…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 54/94 Dated the 7th day of July 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LEWIS CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster CANTERBURY TELEVISION LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 127/94 Decision No: 128/94 Decision No: 129/94 Decision No: 130/94 Dated the 12th day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TREVOR MALLARD MP and VALERIE L J GREHAN of Wainuiomata and WAINUIOMATA COMMUNITY BOARD and DENNIS J KEALL of Wainuiomata Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 51/94 Dated the 30th day of June 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J P LOWE of Hawkes Bay Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 66/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MIKE IRVINE of Auckland Broadcaster 95 bFM Auckland University J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

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....

ComplaintFor Richer or Poorer – movie – "fuck off" – offensive language – insufficient warning FindingsStandard G2 – language not offensive in context – no uphold Standard G8 – classification and time of screening appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary For Richer or Poorer was broadcast on TV3 at 8. 30pm on 29 April 2001. For Richer or Poorer is a comedy movie about a rich couple who hide among the Amish to avoid pursuit by the tax department. During one scene, the wife tells her husband to "fuck off". Ken and Jackie Francis complained to the broadcaster, TV3 Network Services Ltd, that the language was offensive, and that the warning for "coarse" language which had preceded the broadcast had been insufficient....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Edge – “Hug-a-Ginga Day” promotion – listeners encouraged to “hug” people with red hair – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, privacy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 3 (privacy), Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration), Standard 8 (responsible programming) – recording of broadcast unavailable – majority of the Authority declines to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Friday 28 May 2010 was “Hug-a-Ginga Day”, run by The Edge radio station and in particular its breakfast programme, The Edge Morning Madhouse. The hosts encouraged the public to “hug” people with red hair....

SummaryA political advertisement for the ACT party broadcast on 23 November 1999 at 6. 51am referred to its policy to resolve all Treaty claims. Both ACT’s and National’s policies for resolving Treaty matters were referred to at various times during the election campaign. William Powell complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that it was responsible for disseminating incorrect and unconstitutional information which would have misled and confused the public. He emphasised that Treaty matters were not for political parties to decide, and pointed to historical evidence which he said supported his view. He noted that the point was now before the Court of Appeal for adjudication. TVNZ noted that the substance of the complaint was very similar to another lodged by the same complainant, and that it had not been upheld when it was referred to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for review....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about latest season of local drama series Outrageous Fortune – contained clips of sex scenes from the series – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, and children’s interests standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – inclusion of sex scenes was gratuitous in a news item – warning did not excuse that level of sexual material – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers by including sexual material in a news item broadcast during children’s normally accepted viewing times – upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – guidelines relating to promos and advertisements not applicable to news item – not upheld OrdersSection 13(1)(a) – broadcast statement Section 16(4) – payment of $4,000 costs to the Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryThe members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and, at TV3’s request, have viewed field footage relating to the production of the item. They have also read all of the correspondence listed in the Appendix, which includes four affidavits from Diocesan officials, including the Bishop, an article from the October 1998 North and South magazine, an affidavit from TV3’s reporter, submissions from the Diocese, the Dean, Robert Rothel and Diccon Sim in response, a final submission from TV3 and the complainants’ final responses. The Authority was asked to convene a formal hearing to determine the complaints....

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....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

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. ]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. 1993-034:Sharp and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-034 PDF 335. 83 KB...