Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported on the funeral of prominent New Zealand businessman Allan Hubbard – included footage filmed outside his funeral – allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, privacy, fairness and responsible programming FindingsStandard 3 (privacy) – Mrs Hubbard and other people shown in the footage were identifiable but no private facts disclosed and filming was in a public place – those shown were not particularly vulnerable – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – filming was non-intrusive and respectful – footage would not have offended or distressed viewers – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Hubbard family treated fairly – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – footage formed part of an unclassified news programme – item would not have disturbed or alarmed viewers – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

ComplaintNewstalk ZB – talkback – reference to named Judge "jerking off at work" – bad taste – unbalanced – anti-male FindingsPrinciple 1 – robust environment – no uphold Principle 5 – reference to named Judge unfair – majority – uphold Principle 7 and Guideline 7a – neither men nor judges denigrated – no uphold No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A High Court Judge who had viewed pornography on the Internet while at work was the subject of a talkback discussion on Newstalk ZB on 19 February 2002 at around 10. 00pm. During the broadcast, the host made a reference to the Judge "jerking off at work". [2] Dennis Pahl complained to The Radio Network Ltd, the broadcaster of Newstalk ZB, that the reference was anti-male, defamatory, in poor taste and showed a "demonstrable lack of balance" in the show....

ComplaintHolmes Leaders’ Debate – Christian Heritage Party not invited – unbalanced – partial – unfair FindingsStandards 4 and 6 – editorial discretion exercised in balanced and fair way – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The leaders of eight political parties participated in the Holmes Leaders’ Debate broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 15 July 2002. The participants were chosen on the basis that the parties were represented in the outgoing Parliament. The leaders were questioned about aspects of their party’s policies. [2] The Christian Heritage Party (CHP) complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, about its exclusion from the Leaders’ Debate and the following Minor Leaders’ Debate. It said that the broadcaster had acted unfairly in not treating all political parties in the same way....

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....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-088 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MINISTER OF HOUSING (Hon Murray McCully) Broadcaster NEW ZEALAND PUBLIC RADIO LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-054 Decision No: 1997-055 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by P J CULLINANE Bishop of Palmerston North Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

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...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fast Times at Ridgemont High – female movie characters shown practising on carrots how to perform oral sex – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, children’s interests and fairness FindingsStandard 9 (children’s interests) – no explicit sexual activity was shown – movie was AO and broadcast outside of children’s viewing times – warning for sexual material allowed parents to exercise discretion – not upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – standard only applies to specific individuals – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A movie called Fast Times at Ridgemont High was broadcast on C4 at 8. 30pm on Wednesday 9 December 2009. At approximately 8. 42pm, two teenage female characters in the movie were shown eating in a high school cafeteria....

An item on 1 News reported on the National Party leadership battle between Simon Bridges MP and Christopher Luxon MP. In describing both contenders, the reporter referred to Bridges as an ‘absolute political mongrel’. The complainant stated this reference breached various standards including the good taste and decency, and fairness standards as it was inappropriate to describe the Minister as a mongrel. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the term had a separate, complimentary, meaning which was clearly intended in this context. The discrimination and denigration, balance, and accuracy standards did not apply. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Discrimination and Denigration, Balance, Accuracy, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198920/20 – documentary about Phenomena Academy in Fiordland – NZQA accredited institution that teaches how to be healthy and happy – questions raised as to whether students under undue influence from Academy’s founder Aiping Wang – focussed on experience of four former students who were critical of her methods – complaint made by general manager of Academy – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – Academy representatives given adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations – lengthy interviews with Aiping Wang and with complainant – views were clearly communicated – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – two statements inaccurate – other statements not inaccurate – not unnecessarily alarmist – no evidence of lack of editorial independence – upheld on two aspects Standard 6 (fairness) – participants given adequate and reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations made – views were clearly…...

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....

ComplaintThe Rock – a number of complaints – breach of privacy – using the airwaves to ridicule and denigrate – unfair – unjust Findings(1) s. 11(a) – complaints not "frivolous, vexatious, or trivial" (2) s. 4(1)(c) – privacy – no identification – no uphold (3) Principle 5 – 6 December broadcast – no uphold11 December broadcast (6. 19am) – threatening and intimidatory – uphold11 December broadcast (8. 35am) – suggesting someone has mental problems unfair – uphold12 December broadcast (6. 22am) – no uphold12 December broadcast (6. 54am) – no uphold13 December broadcast – abusive and threatening – uphold20 December broadcast – no uphold7 January broadcast – no uphold Orders(1) Broadcast of statement(2) $250 reimbursement of reasonable legal costs and expenses This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] R K Watkins complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – reported public criticism of Taupo District Council’s apparent inaction in Turangi over the state of a swimming pool, sports ground facilities, and footpaths – interviewed chairman of the Taupo/Tongariro Community Board – allegedly in breach of standards relating to the maintenance of law and order, balance, fairness and accuracy FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – no disrespect for principles of law shown– not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – state of council facilities was controversial issue of public importance and reasonable opportunity given to respond to criticisms – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – criticisms advanced by named residents – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – Mr Ormsby given opportunity to reply to criticisms of specific facilities – Turangi described fairly – opportunity for residents to participate in setting priorities for expenditure of rates explained – not upheld This headnote does not form part of…...

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 under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989George FM – radio hosts made comments about complaints to council in respect of a road closure for street party – allegedly in breach of privacy and unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsPrinciple 3 (privacy) – broadcast not offensive – not upheld Principle 4 (balance) – controversial issue of public importance not discussed – not upheld Principle 5 (fairness) – comments were fair comment – not upheld Principle 6 (accuracy) – not a news or current affairs programme – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] On Monday 22 August 2005 at approximately 12. 30pm, the hosts on George FM made comments about a party that the radio station had held. Particular reference was made to a person who had called the council a number of times in an attempt to close the event....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 3 News – reported on a disagreement between two individuals about their input into a Rugby World Cup statue – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standardsFindings Standard 6 (fairness) – item was a balanced and straightforward news report – neither party presented as more credible or worthy than the other – included comment from both parties – no evidence to suggest interview footage unfairly edited – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – item was a straightforward news report – broadcaster was not required to explain the complainant’s position in more detail – viewers would not have been misled – not upheldStandard 2 (law and order) – complainant’s concerns relate to issues of copyright – Authority cannot assume the role of a court – standard not applicable…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Noise Control and promo – followed noise control officers in Auckland – NCO called to a party – complainant shown in the background and speaking directly to the camera – allegedly in breach of privacy, fairness, accuracy and responsible programming standards Findings Standard 6 (fairness) – guideline 6c – complainant properly informed of the nature of his participation – item did not contain any unfair statements – complainant treated fairly – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant identifiable but no private facts disclosed in the broadcast – complainant did not have an interest in solitude or seclusion – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item was not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 8 (responsible programming) – standard not applicable – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News At 4. 30– item on two New Zealanders who assisted with oil spill clean-up in the Gulf of Mexico – stated that the pair thought that New Zealand maritime authorities would be well equipped to deal with a spill of the same scale on New Zealand shores – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints) – not a discussion of a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – news reporter’s comment clearly conveyed technicians’ opinion – item not inaccurate or misleading – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – no person or organisation treated unfairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News At 4. 30, broadcast on TV One at 4....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber, and made unfair and derogatory comments about her duties and her personal attributes. The broadcaster upheld the complaint, and Mr Henry apologised on air a week later. The Authority considered the segment to be a serious breach of standards, but in all the circumstances found the action taken by the broadcaster was sufficient. Not Upheld: Fairness (Action Taken) Introduction [1] During a segment on The Paul Henry Show called ‘Who Even Is That? ’, Mr Henry pointed out the Parliamentary Chamber and Gallery Officer in footage of the Parliamentary Chamber and discussed her position and responsibilities. The presenter also read out excerpts from her job description....