Search Rapua

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…...

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Coronation Street – scene contained two female characters kissing – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, responsible programming, children’s interests and controversial issues standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – kissing scene was brief and innocuous – not made less acceptable by the fact the kiss was between two women – content was consistent with the programme’s G rating and not unsuitable for children – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – programme was correctly rated G and screened in appropriate time-band – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster adequately considered children’s interests – not upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues) – standard only applies to news, current affairs and factual programmes – Coronation Street was a fictional drama – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1990-015:Perry and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1990-015 PDF1008. 74 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Coast FM News reported that Zero Commission ‘has been making low ball offers’ to shareholders of various companies. A majority of the Authority upheld the complaint that Zero Commission and its shareholders were treated unfairly as no opportunity was given to respond to the claims or the negative impression created. The minority did not consider the item was unfair as Zero Commission could reasonably expect some commentary from time to time that it would not like or agree with. The Authority unanimously declined to uphold the complaint that the use of the term ‘low ball’ was inaccurate as this was a subjective term, not a point of fact. The controversial issues standard was not applicable because the item focused squarely on one company, not a controversial issue of public importance....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ] An item on 3 News discussed a leaked internal report which reviewed the Labour Party's election strategy. Towards the conclusion of the item the reporter briefly referred to the recent installation of security doors between the Labour and National Party offices at a cost of $30,000. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the item lacked balance on this point. The brief reference to the installation of the doors did not amount to a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance in the context of this item, which focused on the leaked Labour Party report – so the requirement to present alternative views was not triggered. Not Upheld: Controversial IssuesIntroduction[1] An item on 3 News reported on a leaked internal report which reviewed the Labour Party's election strategy....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A Seven Sharp item discussed the upcoming flag referendum and featured an interview with an Australian advocate for changing the flag. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that presenter Mike Hosking ‘encouraged the New Zealand public to vote a certain way by reiterating his own prejudices and then using an Australian broadcaster to support his own views’. While Mr Hosking made his view in support of changing the flag known, the alternative view was adequately presented during the item. Given the widespread coverage of the flag referendum, viewers could also reasonably be expected to be aware of significant perspectives on the issue, and would not have been deceived or disadvantaged as a result of this item. Not Upheld: Controversial Issues, Responsible ProgrammingIntroduction[1] An item on Seven Sharp discussed the upcoming flag referendum....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 84/95 Dated the 17th day of August 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by D V BLOMFIELD of Waikanae Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 132/95 Dated the 16th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SPECTRUM of Nelson Broadcaster BAYS TELEVISION LIMITED of Nelson J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-053 Dated the 21st day of May 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT X of Auckland Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 27/94 Dated the 9th day of May 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ADOLF SOETEMAN of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I. W. Gallaway Chairperson J. R. Morris R. A. Barraclough L. M. Dawson...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 7/95 Dated the 13th day of February 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER ZOHRAB of Wainuiomata 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: 136/95 Decision No: 137/95 Dated the 30th day of November 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DISTRICT POLICE COMMANDER of Northland and CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-064 Dated the 27th day of June 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOWELANCO (NZ) LIMITED of New Plymouth Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-002 Dated the 23rd day of January 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ROBERT CLARKSON of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-061 Dated the 18th day of June 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by JOHN CONNELL of Rotorua Broadcaster RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

SummaryThe New Zealand Film and Television School Ltd was the subject of items on Holmes broadcast at 7. 00pm on 15 and 16 December 1998. The item on the 15th suggested that some students had been expelled because they complained about aspects of the school’s programme. It also included an interview with Ms Marilyn Hudson, the School’s Managing Director. The item on the 16th included comments from other dissatisfied past and present students and their families, and an interview with a spokesperson from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. On behalf of the School, Ms Hudson complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about both items. She said that the first item contained inaccuracies, and was unbalanced, misleading and unfair both to her and the School. The second item, Ms Hudson complained, also contained some inaccuracies, and again was unbalanced, misleading and unfair....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Agenda – discussion of recent campaign issues which had arisen in regard to forthcoming general election – commentators were a former president of the National Party, a former president of the Labour Party and a political science lecturer – allegedly partisan and unbalancedFindingsStandard 4 (balance) – most of complaint based on personal preferences – role of minor parties raised issue of broadcasting standards – range of views advanced – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Agenda broadcast on TV One at 8. 30am on 10 September 2005 included a panel discussion about campaign issues relating to the general election then due on 17 September. Specific aspects were covered in different segments of the programme....

Summary The referendum proposition to decrease the number of MPs from 120 to 99 was the subject of debate on Crossfire broadcast on TV One on 7 October 1999 beginning at 9. 30pm. The matter was discussed by Act’s leader Richard Prebble MP in support of the proposal, and Labour MP Steve Maharey, who opposed it. Keith Flint complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that as the referendum had been initiated by a private citizen, the absence of a representative of the public to debate the matter resulted in the programme lacking balance and objectivity. In its response, TVNZ emphasised that the question being debated was whether a reduction in the number of MPs would result in better government and, in that context, it was entirely appropriate that it should be debated by one MP who supported the cut in numbers, and one who did not....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – discussed “the model who can’t go to fashion week because she’s too big” – interviewed the model and her mother as well as the manager of her modelling agency – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – item created clear impression that Nova was not putting forward the model for work because of her hip size – viewers would have been misled by the omission of other reasons including the model’s refusal to work for Nova – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – broadcaster did not deny that Nova’s manager explained the other reasons in his interview – those reasons were not included in the story – unfair – upheld Standard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – story focused on one individual – no discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld No Order This headnote does not form…...