Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-165 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER LORD of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club – clips of violent behaviour – breach of good taste – threatened standards of law and order – racist – inappropriate classification – unsuitable for children – excessive violence – Prime upheld complaint in part – apologised – removed series from broadcast – dissatisfied with action taken on aspects upheld – dissatisfied with aspects not upheld Findings (1) action taken on Standards 2, 7 and 10 – action taken insufficient – uphold(2) Standard 1 – context – upholdStandard 6 – not unfair to South American Indians – no upholdStandard 9 – unsuitable for child viewers – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Maximum Exposure – International Fight Club was broadcast on Prime at 8. 30pm on Sunday 13 October 2002....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – presenters used the term “anti-gay” to refer to people who opposed same-sex marriage – allegedly in breach of accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – while use of term “anti-gay” was sloppy, and incorrect when taken in isolation, it was corrected by context of discussion about gay marriage – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – term “anti-gay” was used in context of discussion about gay marriage and did not carry any malice or invective – did not encourage discrimination or denigration against people opposed to same-sex marriage – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – viewers would not have been deceived – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Willie and JT Show – hosts discussed sentencing of ‘Urewera Four’ members – comparisons made with treatment of complainant who was discharged without conviction after being found guilty of similar charges – complainant phoned in to the programme and explained background to his case – hosts accused him of lying and called him a “psychopath” and “sociopath” and compared him to “Hannibal Lecter” – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – hosts’ use of the terms “psychopath” and “sociopath” and comparison with “Hannibal Lecter” amounted to personal abuse – Mr Shapiro unable to defend himself as phone call had ended – Mr Shapiro treated unfairly – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – broad focus of the item was a controversial issue of public importance – however, item did not…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-115:Tawhai and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-115 PDF300. 14 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Worldwatch broadcast a three-part interview series with Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator, described as ‘one of the most powerful women in the Middle East’ and ‘a forceful advocate for Palestinian self-determination and peace in the Middle East’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint alleging that the interviews amounted to support for terrorism, ‘[s]olely blame[d] Israel for all the Palestinian suffering’, and contained a number of inaccurate and misleading allegations about the Israel-Palestine conflict. The interviews did not contain several of the statements complained about, but were rather the complainant’s interpretation of what he considered Ms Ashrawi had implied. Other comments complained about were clearly Ms Ashwari’s opinion, to which the accuracy standard did not apply....

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'....

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] 3 News summarised the findings in the latest report released by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the United Nations report was propaganda, and should not have been referred to. This was a straightforward news report on the latest findings released by the IPCC. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Accuracy, Fairness, Responsible Programming Introduction [1] A 3 News item summarised the findings of the latest report released by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The item was broadcast on TV3 on 14 April 2014....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-155 Decision No: 1996-156 Decision No: 1996-157 Dated the 14th day of November 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by CALUM SAWYERS of Wellington and A J HUGHES and A J WALKER of Auckland and ROSEMARY SEGEDIN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

SummaryA nightmare housemoving experience was related by a woman featured in a programme entitled "My House, My Castle" broadcast on TV2 on 19 July 1999 beginning at 8. 00pm. The programme was previewed in the days preceding the broadcast. Michael Bott, on behalf of Brittons Housemovers (Wellington) Ltd, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that footage showing a truck belonging to the company was used to illustrate the "housemoving story from hell". In fact, Brittons Housemovers had had no connection with the move, he wrote. The company cited a number of broadcasting standards which it contended were breached by the programme and the promos. In its response, TVNZ explained that the shots of the housemoving truck were archival shots which had been used to illustrate the story. It maintained that the company could not have been identified from that footage....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fanny Hill promo – broadcast during One News and Mucking In – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, programme classification and children’s interests standards Findings Standard 7 (programme classification) – promo incorrectly classified – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – Mucking In – broadcaster did not adequately consider interests of child viewers by broadcasting promo during a G-rated programme – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – One News – majority considers broadcasting PGR promo during unclassified news did not breach standard – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 7 and 9 Order Section 16(4) – payment of costs to the Crown $2,000 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintBookmarks – book reading – offensive language; unsuitable for children FindingsPrinciple 1 – potential breach averted by words being beeped – no language or concepts which would offend – not targeted at children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An extract from the book "They who do not Grieve" by Sia Figiel was read by her on the Bookmarks programme broadcast on National Radio on 2 December 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm. Part of the extract was masked by an audible beep. Douglas Bacon complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the extract read was vulgar and that he could hardly believe the "obscenities" it contained. He said he took into account that it was broadcast during the early evening when younger people could be listening....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on a disagreement between two individuals about their input into a Rugby World Cup statue – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a balanced and straightforward news report – neither party presented as more credible or worthy than the other – included comment from both parties – no evidence to suggest interview footage unfairly edited – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a straightforward news report – broadcaster was not required to explain the complainant’s position in more detail – viewers would not have been misled – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – complainant’s concerns relate to issues of copyright – Authority cannot assume the role of a court – standard not applicable…...

ComplaintPromos – The Strip – sexual material – allegedly offensive – promos for AO programme screened in G and PGR time-bands – inappropriate FindingsStandard 1 – contextual factors – no uphold Standard 5 – not relevant – no uphold Standard 7 – majority – promos appropriately classified PGR – minority – inappropriate rating – classification code AO should have been used – two promos shown during 3 News – failed to comply with PGR time-band – uphold; majority – promo shown during 20/20 – complied with PGR time-band – no uphold – minority – inappropriate classification – breachNo Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Promos for The Strip were broadcast by TV3 at various times on 30 June, 1 and 6 July 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on a strip club package for supporters of Lions rugby tour – naked women shown playing pool – demonstration of lap dancing – bedroom with mirrors shown – allegedly offensive, inappropriately classified and unsuitable for children – presenter said “stuff you bitch” at end of programme about another matter – allegedly offensiveFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheld Standard 7 (programme classification) – not applicable to news and current affairs – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – sufficient earlier indications of focus of item – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The package offered by a strip club for Lions rugby supporters was covered in an item on Holmes broadcast on Prime at 7. 00pm on 24 May 2005....

SummaryIn a segment of Target which was broadcast on TV3 on 19 September 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm, viewers were advised how to remove graffiti from a variety of surfaces when "little parliamentarians" had been naughty. The graffiti which was removed included a number of messages couched in schoolyard language such as "Jenny and Winston 4 eva", "Jenny © Timberlands", and "Jenny and Timberlands up a tree L. O. G. G. I. N. G. "Stephen Sheaf complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the messages contained in the graffiti phrases were both childish and totally inexcusable. Apart from what he called the obvious political overtones, they had contained "emotional smear tactics", he wrote. The segment, TV3 advised, was a light-hearted piece which explained how common household products could be used to remove graffiti....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced one of the trivia experts as ‘“The Governess” Anne Hegerty – big brain, big bo…ots? ’ to audience laughter. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the host commented on Ms Hegerty’s ‘big boobs’ which was discriminatory against women, distasteful and unfair to Ms Hegerty, among other things. While the comment may have offended some viewers, it did not reach the threshold necessary to find a breach of broadcasting standards. Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Good Taste and Decency, Fairness, Responsible Programming, Accuracy   Introduction [1] During The Chase, a British quiz show, the host introduced the four trivia experts (the ‘chasers’) as follows: Who will you be up against today? Could it be Paul ‘The Sinnerman’ Sinha – big brain, bad suit?...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

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....