Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the murder of Deidre Tobin by her partner Craig Jackson – Mr Jackson found not guilty by reason of insanity – interviewed Ms Tobin’s family and friends plus two detectives who believed Mr Jackson was faking his insanity – allegedly in breach of law and order, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – Authority unable to determine the position of the Crown solicitor – overall programme was balanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Jackson, Dr Simpson or the Tobin family – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item entitled “Insanely Jealous?...

ComplaintNightline – item about "Puppetry of the Penis" – penis obscured – inaccurate as truth concealed – sexualising human body breach of law and order FindingsStandards 2 – legal process followed – no uphold Standard 5 – item not inaccurate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The show "Puppetry of the Penis" was discussed during an item broadcast on Nightline at about 11. 00pm on 29 April 2002. The item did not include any visuals of penis puppetry as the reporter stated that the "full monty" would not be revealed in view of compliance with "broadcasting standards". [2] John Lowe complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that in view of the material shown in other programmes, the comment was inaccurate. He also said that the item breached the requirement for standards consistent with the maintenance of law and order....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about file sharing software – showed images from a snuff movie three times during short item – woman seen begging not to be filmed with a gun held to her head – gunshot heard on one occasion but with no image – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standard 1, spoke to news staff and broadcast on-air apology – complainants dissatisfied with decision and action taken FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law or glamorise the criminal activity shown – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – irrespective of whether the snuff movie was real or fake, no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unable to determine whether woman treated fairly – decline…...

Complaint3 News – comment by sports presenter about player "milking" injury – incident during rugby matchFindings(1) Standard G14 – interpretation acceptable – no uphold (2) Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary During a sports item on 3 News about a head-high tackle which had occurred during a rugby match, the sports presenter commented that the tackled player’s team-mates were "quick to ensure he milked it for all it was worth". The item was broadcast on TV3 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm on 12 March 2000. Mathew Zacharias complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had breached numerous broadcasting standards....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – live telephone interview with Napier resident watching police trying to deal with an armed man barricaded inside a house and who had been shooting at police – host questioned resident about what he could see and hear and what the police were doing – allegedly in breach of law and order standard Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – information provided by interviewee would not have assisted the armed man – no evidence that the information disclosed affected the maintenance of law and order – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a segment on Checkpoint, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National at 5....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-111 Decision No: 1996-112 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by M FRASER of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint Spectrum – documentary – Cuban cigar business – promoted cigar smoking – glamorised cigars – unbalanced – illegal FindingsPrinciple 2 – no jurisdiction over Smoke-free Environments Act – no uphold Principle 4 – not a controversial issue – no uphold Principle 7 – freedom of speech – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Spectrum documentary broadcast on National Radio on 7 December 1999 focused on people involved in the cigar industry. Cuban growers and manufacturers were interviewed, as well as a retailer of cigars in New Zealand. The Smokefree Coalition complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the programme promoted and glamorised cigar smoking, and gave considerable airtime to promoting the business of an Auckland retailer of cigars....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989ZM – host discussed a television item that had contained an interview with Ray Spring – host made various statements about Mr Spring and told listeners where to find his home address in the White Pages – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance and fairness standards Findings Principle 3 (privacy) – item disclosed complainant’s name and effectively disclosed his address in a manner that was highly offensive – no legitimate public interest in the disclosure – upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – item breached standards of privacy which was also unfair – item encouraged listeners to harass the complainant – upheld Principle 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage listeners to break the law – the host’s comments were not sufficiently explicit to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial…...

ComplaintExposé: The Secret Policeman – documentary – BBC reporter acting undercover as a policeman – reported racist attitudes of some police officers – detrimental to those who do not accept racism, especially young people Findings Standard 2 and Guidelines 2b and 2c – in public interest that disturbing attitudes are disclosed – not children’s normally accepted viewing time – not upheld Standard 1, Standard 3, Standard 4, Standard 5, Standard 6, Standard 7, Standard 9 and Standard 10 – to the extent that complaint raised broadcasting standards, all issues assessed under Standard 2This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] The BBC documentary Exposé: The Secret Policeman involved a reporter working undercover as a police officer in Manchester. The programme revealed that some officers behaved in a racist manner or articulated racist views. It was broadcast on TV One at 9. 35pm on 2 December 2003....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Tudors – included a scene in which a man was tortured by having a burning hot steel rod pushed up his backside – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – did not promote, glamorise or condone torture – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised adequate care and discretion with the issue of violence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of The Tudors, a drama series about the reign and marriages of King Henry VIII, was broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on Sunday 1 November 2010. The programme included a brief scene in which a rebel leader was tortured....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item about a painting by Philip Clairmont called “The Possum” – discussed who owned the painting, the authenticity of the signature and whether it was intended to be sold as a serious work – included interviews with Mr Clairmont’s son, ex-partner and one of his friends – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – item treated the complainant fairly – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – accurate to state that the complainant had made thousands from the sale of Clairmont artworks – decline to determine under section 11(b) whether the signature was genuine – item did not imply that complainant had forged the signature – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity –…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989The Unauthorised History of New Zealand – presenter commented that “the white settlers were intent on fucking over the natives” in New Zealand – pretended to urinate on a public sculpture – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and balance standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – no realistic portrayal of anti-social behaviour – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – programme was not a news, current affairs or factual programme – standard did not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The Unauthorised History of New Zealand was a satirical series lampooning certain trends and incidents in New Zealand history....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Four episodes of The Windsors, a British satirical comedy series, parodied the British Royal Family with reference to topical events. The episodes featured exaggerated characters based on members of the British Royal Family and contained offensive language and sexual material. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the episodes failed general standards of common taste and decency, and denigrated and ridiculed the Queen and her family. The Authority found that the episodes were clearly satirical and intended to be humorous. While this particular brand of humour may not be to everyone’s liking, the right to freedom of expression includes the right to satirise public figures, including heads of state. In the context of an AO-classified satirical comedy series, which was broadcast at 8....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-063:Milnes and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-063 PDF445. 85 KB...

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-107:Fudakowski and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1993-107 PDF483. 7 KB...

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 DNZ: Speed Thrills – documentary included footage of young male drivers exceeding speed limit – allegedly encouraged law breaking and glamorised speedingFindings Standard 2 (law and order) and Guidelines 2a, 2b and 2c – did not glamorise, condone or encourage speeding – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The programme DNZ: Speed Thrills was broadcast on TV One on 15 March 2004 at 8. 35pm. It included footage of two young men driving at night in excess of the speed limit. Complaint [2] Alexander Johnston complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the young men were exceeding the speed limit by “considerable margins” and that TVNZ staff must have encouraged them to do so. Otherwise, Mr Johnston wrote, it would have been pointless to have installed cameras in their cars....

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

Complaint Fair Go – item about infomercial – presenter took dispute with marketing firm to Fair Go – marketing firm complainant – item failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced – unfair – inaccurate Findings Standard 2 – statement of claim – "gagging writ" – no uphold Standard 4 – balance of perspectives aired – no uphold Standard 5 – inaccuracy – complainant did not threaten to sue if item broadcast – uphold on this point – no other inaccuracies – no Order Standard 6 – Topline not dealt with unfairly – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined a dispute between a television presenter who was hired by Topline International to present an infomercial. The item was broadcast on Fair Go on TV One at 7. 30pm on 18 September 2002....