Search Rapua

TVNZ's request to the Authority to recall Decision 1999-053 and not to issue that decision for publication declined. A PDF of Decision 1999-054 can be downloaded here: Loos and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-054 PDF234. 41 kB...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about CCTV and New Zealand increasingly becoming a surveillance society – included footage of two school pupils fighting – allegedly in breach of privacy FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – poor quality footage – no identifying features – pupils not identifiable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 22 June 2009, looked at the increase in CCTV video surveillance in New Zealand and whether the country was becoming a “surveillance society”. [2] The item included brief footage showing two school pupils fighting. The footage was grainy and looked to have been recorded on a cell phone. It showed a group of pupils standing around and jeering as one boy walked up to another and punched him in the head....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 19/95 Decision No: 20/95 Dated the 6th day of April 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by KINGS COLLEGE of Auckland and its headmaster JOHN TAYLOR Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris L M Loates W J Fraser...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reporting research into filicide, where parents murder their children – presenter noted that filicide “is often committed by men” – interviewed two women whose partners had murdered their children and referred to a third case where a mother had murdered her daughters – allegedly unbalanced and unfair FindingsStandard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance in terms of balance standard – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not allege that any person or organisation taking part or referred to in the broadcast was treated unfairly – standard does not apply – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast at 7....

Complaint60 Minutes – allegation of bullying in RNZ Navy’s gunnery section – sensational – unfair – unbalancedFindingsStandard G4 – Navy spokesperson responded to detailed allegations – no uphold Standard G6 – full opportunity for Navy to respond – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on 60 Minutes, entitled "Breaking Ranks", told the story of one former naval rating who spoke of brutal assaults in the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) gunnery section. Because he had broken the code of silence by accusing instructors of assault, the item reported that he had been forced to leave the Navy. Pauline McIntosh complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast was based on unsubstantiated evidence and lacked balance....

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item reported on high profile immigration case involving Chinese millionaire William Yan – disclosed Mr Yan’s address and showed footage of Mr Yan’s business assistant in the lobby of the apartment building where Mr Yan lived – allegedly in breach of privacy standard FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mr Yan’s address was not disclosed for the purposes of encouraging harassment as envisaged by privacy principle 4 – no evidence that harassment resulted from the disclosure – apartment building lobby was accessible to the public so neither Mr Yan nor his business assistant had a reasonable expectation of privacy there – item did not breach the privacy of Mr Yan or his business assistant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item told the story of a New Zealander who murdered his girlfriend in Sydney in 1987 – included footage of complainant’s house and incorrectly implied that it was where the murder took place – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy, fairness, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – complainant not identifiable through footage of her house – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – while the footage and implication the house was the scene of a murder were inaccurate, this was immaterial to the focus of the item so viewers would not have been misled in any significant respect – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant did not take part and was not referred to in the item – standard not applicable – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-053:Sharp and TV3 Network Services Ltd - 1993-053 PDF274. 67 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-055 Dated the 16th day of May 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by KAREN DAWKINS of Rotorua Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION SummaryThe case of a social worker convicted of child abuse offences whose name had beensuppressed was examined in an item on Channel 2's 60 Minutes broadcast between7. 30–8. 30pm on Sunday 4 September. One aspect of the story was that his pastbehaviour had worried some of his fellow social workers who had drawn theirconcerns to the attention of the supervisory staff. Before the broadcast, Mrs MacKenzie, Chief Social Worker for the AucklandHospital Board from 1982–1991, declined by telephone to comment to 60 Minuteson personnel matters. She was subsequently approached by 60 Minutes' reporter anda crew – with cameras rolling – outside her home when leaving for work one morning. She again declined to comment and went inside. She complained to Television NewZealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the incident had breached a number of broadcastingstandards and in addition that it had breached her privacy....

A PDF of Decision 1999-053 can be downloaded here:Loos and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1999-053 PDF185. 19 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 3/95 Dated the 24th day of January 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by JUDITH MACKENZIE 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: 1996-138 Dated the 24th day of October 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by J G RAWSON of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-100 Decision No: 1997-101 Dated the 7th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by MURRAY ARNESEN of Tauranga Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – interview with former Breakfast presenter Paul Henry – questioned Mr Henry on his controversial remarks about the Chief Minister of Delhi – comments about the Chief Minister were re-broadcast – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, controversial issues and discrimination and denigration FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues) – interview did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – focused on Paul Henry and his perspective on the various controversies in which he was involved – not upheld Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – Paul Henry’s comments did not extend to a section of the community – interviewer challenged his views – interview did not encourage discrimination or denigration of Indian people – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – comments about the Chief Minister revisited in current affairs context – interview would not have…...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 29/94 Decision No: 30/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DR PAUL SMEDLEY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

Complaint under section 8(1A) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about life and death of Antonie Dixon – showed death certificate – contained name of paramedic who responded to medical emergency – allegedly in breach of privacy Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – paramedic’s name and involvement in Mr Dixon’s case not private facts – death certificate is a public document – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on 60 Minutes, broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 2 March 2009, discussed the life and death of Antonie Dixon, who was convicted of several charges including murder, and later found dead in his cell at an Auckland prison. While the reporter and Mr Dixon’s sister discussed his death, Mr Dixon’s death certificate was shown on screen....

Complaint60 Minutes – item on Ritalin – offensive – irresponsible – failed to respect principles of law – likely to place children at riskFindings(1) Standard G5 – no disrespect for law evidenced – no uphold (2) Standard G2 – public interest – current affairs – audience expectations unlikely to have been exceeded – no uphold (3) Standard G12 – not relevant – no uphold (4) Standard G16 – public interest – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on the black market for the prescription drug Ritalin was broadcast on 60 Minutes on TV One on 11 June 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm. On behalf of ADHD. org....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – story explored the craze surrounding imitations of Jackass movies involving dangerous stunts and an internet site that was profiting from it – footage of stunts shown – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and law and order standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – shocking footage was appropriate given the focus of the programme – warning was adequate – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item was a cautionary tale – did not encourage or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision....