Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 139/95 Dated the 30th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DAVID TROOP of Hamilton Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 106/94 Dated the 3rd day of November 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by R J ENGLAND of Wellington 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: 124/94 Dated the 1st day of December 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by THE PAVAN FAMILY of Johnsonville 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: 25/95 Dated the 12th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on ONE News reported on incidents of violence in Israel and Palestine. The newsreader said, ‘Road blocks are in place and thousands of police and soldiers are patrolling across Israel as it tries to stop a wave of violence’, and then crossed to a correspondent reporting from East Jerusalem. The item also went on to report on other incidents of violence between Israelis and Palestinians, including in Gaza. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item was inaccurate because East Jerusalem is internationally recognised as being part of Palestine, not Israel, and viewers would have been misled into thinking that much of the violence took place in Israel. Upheld: AccuracyNo OrderIntroduction[1] An item on ONE News reported on incidents of violence in Israel and Palestine....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of the British cartoon, Grizzly Tales, which was classified G (General), featured a young girl called Victoria Spew who threw tantrums until she vomited to get her way. At the end of the episode, Victoria was sucked into the vacuum cleaner her mother had bought to clean up after her. The cartoon showed Victoria’s teeth being pulled from her gums, and organs and body parts falling into the bag. The episode ended with Victoria’s body parts trapped in the vacuum cleaner. The Authority upheld a complaint that this episode of Grizzly Tales was unsuitable for young children. The programme was classified G and so was required to be suitable for all children under the age of 14....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint that comments during a documentary on New Zealand’s involvement in the World War I military campaign in Gallipoli breached the discrimination and denigration standard. In the broadcast, one of the presenters was shown a photograph of a woman behind bars, in the context of a conversation about prostitutes being available for troops stationed in Egypt. The presenter then made a derogatory comment about the appearance of the woman. The complainant submitted the comments made in the broadcast denigrated both women and sex workers. The Authority acknowledged that the comment regarding the woman’s appearance in particular, which also diminished the seriousness of some women’s experiences in World War I, was insensitive and unnecessary, and would be considered sexist and offensive to some viewers....

The Authority has not upheld direct privacy complaints in relation to broadcasts reporting on a shootout between fugitive Tom Phillips and police, and the location of his two missing children in the bush. The complainant submitted broadcasting the children were ‘cooperative’ with police, and images of their campsite, breached the children’s privacy. Applying the privacy standard, the Authority found these limited details did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy, noting they had been released by police and were in the public domain, and were not intimate or sensitive in nature. While acknowledging the children’s vulnerability and lack of consent to these details being broadcast, given the significant public interest and concern for the children’s wellbeing, it could reasonably be expected that this limited information about their demeanour and where they were found may be disclosed. Not Upheld: Privacy...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-062:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-062 PDF276. 59 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A ONE News item reported on the most recent report of the IPCC and summarised some of the report’s findings, including predictions of more frequent storms and droughts. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the summary was inaccurate, as the broadcaster provided information demonstrating a sufficient basis for the statements made. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] A ONE News item reported on the most recent report (AR5 Report) released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The item was introduced:Rising sea levels, more extinct species and possible food shortages. That’s the grim prediction by a global gathering of top scientists who say, for the first time, we are responsible for climate change. And as [reporter’s name] reports, New Zealand’s set to feel the heat too....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fear Factor – reality programme in which contestants take part in repellent or frightening activities – contestants were required to tread in a vat containing live earthworms and were required to drink worm “juice” – allegedly offensive and not in interests of childrenFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) and Guideline 1a – context – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) and Guideline 9e – earthworms not animals under Guideline 9e – S1930 rating imposed by broadcaster indicated that children’s interests were acknowledged – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Fear Factor was screened at 7. 30pm on TV2 on 2 March 2004. The broadcaster described Fear Factor as a “reality” programme in which the contestants are challenged to take part in repellent and frightening activities....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News Insight: "Learning the Hard Way" – documentary about privately-run tertiary courses – segment about the film industry included references to The Film School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – complaint more appropriately assessed under fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – fact alleged to be inaccurate was expression of opinion to which standard does not apply – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item about students getting “duped” by substandard courses – only institution identified was The Film School – implied The Film School was one of these substandard courses – no evidence to suggest that it was substandard – unfair – upheld Order Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statementThis headnote does not form part of the decision....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2009-404-003728 PDF255....

ComplaintAssignment – mental health system – complainant a mental health campaigner – introduced as mother of schizophrenic – prior agreement not to refer to her family – unfair – breach of privacy – upheld by TVNZ only as unfair FindingsPrinciple 3 and Guideline 3a – privacy principle (i) – disclosure of mental illness highly offensive and objectionable – breach of mother’s and son’s privacy – uphold OrdersCompensation of $1500 to the complainant; Contribution to the payment of CD’s expenses of $750. This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Issues about the mental health system in New Zealand were addressed in Assignment broadcast on TV One at 8. 35pm on 7 November 2002. The complainant is a mental health campaigner and agreed to participate so long as there was no reference to her family....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that a group of Australian teenage boys had filmed their attack of a teenage girl and were circulating the footage on DVD – showed some images of the boys’ attack – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, the maintenance of law and order, unfair, and in breach of children’s interests and the violence standard FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – subsumed under Standard 10 Standard 2 (Law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to teenage girl or homeless man – not upheld Standard 9 (children's interests) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to violent content – broadcaster did not consider the interests of children – upheld Standard 10 (violence) – item should have been preceded by a warning due to…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989A Question of Justice – documentary examining the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members – included police video, photographs of the crime scene, and re-enactments of the murders – allegedly unfair and in breach of the violence standardFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – programme explored all different perspectives – not unfair to David Bain – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – murder scenes not gratuitous – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A Question of Justice, broadcast on TV One at 8. 30pm on 12 May 2005, examined the ongoing controversy surrounding the conviction of David Bain for the murders of five family members. The programme included police video and photographs of the crime scene, plus re-enactments of the murders and other scenes....

Complaint How’s Life? – three panellists suggested that people not medically cleared for work should nevertheless get a job – potentially dangerous – insensitive Findings Standard 1 – light-hearted context – not upheld Standard 6 – agony aunt entertainment programme – not sufficiently serious to be unfair – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] How’s Life? , which was broadcast each weekday on TV One at 5. 30pm, featured a panel of local personalities who gave their own prepared answers to questions about human relationships submitted by viewers. The programme broadcast on 30 September 2003 considered a question from a person in receipt of accident compensation who was keen to return to work. Three of the four panellists suggested the questioner seek work....

Complaint under section 8(1) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Election programme – advertisement for the New Zealand National Party – John Key pictured in moving vehicle – complaint that Mr Key was not wearing a seatbelt – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests standards Findings Election Programmes Code Standard E1 – standards in the Free-to-Air Television Code apply to election programmes Standard 2 (law and order) – advertisement showed Mr Key removing seatbelt – reasonably attentive viewer would have concluded that he was wearing a seatbelt – even if he was not shown wearing a seatbelt, would not have breached Standard 2 – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – advertisement did not contain any material likely to disturb or alarm children – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....