Search Rapua

An appeal against this decision was allowed in part in the High Court with the Authority instructed to amend its order: AP158/91 PDF (204. 76 KB)Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-025:Mansell and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-025 PDF683. 79 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-015:New Zealand Police and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1992-015 PDF2. 1 MB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-025 Dated the 7th day of March 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HEALTH (Hon Jenny Shipley) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint that an RNZ News bulletin reporting on the arrest of Kiritapu Allan, and political commentators’ views on the implications for Labour’s election chances, breached the balance and fairness standards. The complaint considered the item favoured two ‘negative’ opinions that were ‘noticeably biased against the Labour government’ and ignored a ‘positive’ balancing view available ‘just minutes earlier’ from Minister James Shaw. The Authority found the item was balanced, having included alternative significant perspectives just prior to the news bulletin. The fairness standard did not apply to the concern of how a ‘situation’ is presented, and in any event, the Authority did not consider either Allan or the Labour Party were treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Balance, Fairness...

SummaryA news item broadcast in Maori on the National Programme at 6. 08am on 15 July 1993referred to the controversy which ensued after an essay about the appropriation of Maorisymbolism by Pakeha artists was published in the catalogue to an art exhibition in Sydney. Mr Panoho, whose essay was the source of the controversy, complained to Radio NewZealand Ltd that the broadcast failed to convey his views accurately and that it did notdeal fairly with him because it attributed to him views that were contradictory to hispublished opinions. In response, RNZ reported that the material in the news item had originated from apublished article it had examined which commented on Mr Panoho's essay. It believedthat the article's interpretation of Mr Panoho's views was accurate and considered thatbecause the broadcast was a factual report of publicly expressed opinions there was nobreach of broadcasting standards. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-108–110:Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child Inc, Armstrong and daughters and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-108–110719. 35 KB...

The Authority declined to determine a complaint regarding a news item covering the expansion of a sexual violence court pilot. The complainant submitted that the victim advocate interviewed in the item should not have been interviewed and should not have been referred to as a rape survivor. The Authority concluded that, in all the circumstances of the complaint, it should not be determined by the Authority. The Authority found the concerns raised in the complaint are matters of editorial discretion and personal preference rather than broadcasting standards, and are therefore not capable of being determined by the broadcasting standards complaints procedure. Declined to determine: Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Violence, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Privacy, Fairness...

Warning: This decision discusses issues of sexual abuse of children and suicide. The Authority has not upheld a complaint that documentary 1 Special: The Lost Boys of Dilworth was inaccurate by not mentioning the denomination or titles of school chaplains involved in sexual abuse of students, or a complaint that the inclusion of re-enactments of memories of survivors re-traumatised victims of abuse, promoted sexual offending against children, breached privacy and was unfair to child actors involved. The Authority found that omission to mention the denomination or title of chaplains would not have materially altered the audience’s understanding of the documentary. The Authority also found that the inclusion of re-enactments did not breach the standards nominated, noting in particular that audience members (including survivors of abuse) were given appropriate information to make informed viewing decisions, no re-enactment depicted sexual violence and the offending of paedophiles was condemned throughout....

SummaryThe action of the police in Christchurch in shooting and wounding a person with a shotgun was covered in an item on 3 News at 6. 00pm, and again on Nightline at 10. 30pm, on 27 August 1998. During the item, a reporter attempted to interview a flatmate of the gunman. However, the reporter said, the flatmate indicated that he had been paid to talk exclusively to another news organisation. When the flatmate was heard to tell the reporter that he had received "a few thousand dollars" to talk only to the other news organisation, a shot of a vehicle marked "One Network News" was shown. Television New Zealand Ltd, which produces One Network News, complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd, the makers of 3 News and Nightline, that the items were inaccurate and unfair. Further, it complained that although TV3 news had been advised by 9....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Beyond the Darklands: Bert Potter – programme was a case study of Bert Potter based on analysis by a clinical psychologist and recollections of former members of his Centrepoint commune – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – programme was a case study by psychologist of Bert Potter and his involvement in Centrepoint – historical interest for viewers but no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccurate points of fact – programme would not have misled viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no individuals or organisations treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintMore FM – radio competition – disclosure of work-place – unfair – breach of privacyFindingsPrinciple 3 Guideline 3a – Privacy Principle (v) – complainant’s work-place private information – uphold – apology to complainant sufficientPrinciple 5 – broadcaster upheld complaint – action taken sufficientNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary[1] On 10 May 2002, B entered a radio competition on More FM in Dunedin. B’s work-place details were broadcast, after he had specifically stated that he did not want his work-place disclosed on-air. [2] B complained to More FM, the broadcaster, that the broadcast breached his privacy and was a "blatant and deceitful" breach of the requirement that broadcasters deal justly and fairly with any person taking part in a broadcast. He also complained directly to the Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the same broadcast had breached his privacy....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989South Park – picture of a statue of Jesus Christ – voice said “Look at me, I’m Jesus. Would you like me to crap on you Mr Bush?...

Te Raumawhitu Kupenga declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the determination of this complaint. Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989National Party Infrastructure Advertisement – contained images of infrastructure that was allegedly planned, consented, funded and mostly completed under the previous Labour Government – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard E1 (election programmes subject to other Codes) – Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) of the Free-to-Air TV Code – advertisement created impression that the National-led Government had a role in the examples of infrastructure shown – however language in the advertisement was couched in present and forward-looking terms rather than looking at past achievements – not inaccurate – fairness standard only applies to individuals or organisations taking part or referred to – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Breakfast – host made remarks about his dislike for campervans and the people who use them – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments intended to be humorous – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – host's comments were personal opinion not points of fact – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not identify any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in the programme – campervan owners not a section of the community to which guideline 6g applies – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During an episode of Breakfast, broadcast on TV One between 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item reporting the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography – showed two men standing at a vending machine – face of the accused not shown, side profile of the other man was shown – allegedly in breach of privacy and unfair FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – no private facts disclosed – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – item implied complainant was defendant on child pornography charges – incorrect – seriously unfair – upheldOrderCosts to the Crown of $3000This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item broadcast on 3 News on TV3 at 6pm on 7 March 2005 reported on the court appearance of a man charged with accessing child pornography via the internet. The reporter said that due to a judge’s ruling, 3 News was unable to name the alleged offender....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 62/95 Dated the 6th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ERNSLAW ONE LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

The Authority has not upheld two complaints about a broadcast of The Panel which briefly discussed public perception of the recognition of a Palestinian state and the panellists’ views on whether Aotearoa New Zealand should sanction Israel. The complaints were made under several standards and included claims the broadcast was unbalanced for not including comment from Palestinians ‘or directly affected individuals’, and treated Palestinians unfairly. Additionally, a panellist’s comment was said to be inaccurate and misleading, and to discriminate against and denigrate Palestinians. Under the balance standard, the Authority found alternative perspectives were provided by the other panellist. In addition, the broadcast: was clearly signalled as approaching the topics canvassed from the panellists’ perspectives; was narrowly focussed on certain aspects of the much larger, complex Israel-Palestine conflict; and listeners were likely to be aware of significant viewpoints given the issues had been frequently covered in a range of media....

The Authority has declined to determine a complaint about a news item on RNZ National. The item included a brief comment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from his first televised address following the deaths of key Hamas leaders which the complainant alleges was in breach of multiple standards. The Authority declined to determine the complaint finding it relates to a matter of editorial discretion/personal preference and identified no harm sufficient to outweigh the right to freedom of expression. Declined to Determine under s 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989: Offensive and Disturbing Content, Children's Interests, Promotion of Illegal or Antisocial Behaviour, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance and Fairness...

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging the comment ‘Australia mugs the Black Caps’ breached the fairness, discrimination and denigration, and balance standards. The comment was typical of sports commentary and was not unfair to the Australian cricket team. As it was directed at the Australian cricket team, rather than a particular section of the community, the discrimination and denigration standard did not apply. The balance standard also did not apply. Not Upheld: Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance...