Search Rapua

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Holmes – item on art piece commissioned for Venice Biennale at cost of $500,000 in public money – interview with Peter Biggs of Creative New Zealand – allegedly unfair to Mr Biggs and misleading/inaccurate FindingsStandard 4 – not unbalanced – Mr Biggs was able to present his view – not upheld Standard 5 – item did not suggest that braying toilet was the work to be exhibited – not misleading or inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 – Mr Biggs not treated unfairly – as a seasoned media commentator he was able to get his point across – not upheld Standard 8 – not relevant – declined to determine This headnote does not form part of the decision....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 30/95 Dated the 11th day of May 1995 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 L M Loates W J Fraser...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-169 Dated the 15th day of December 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by DOUGLAS JENKIN of Wellington Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R M McLeod J Withers...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-175 Decision No: 1996-176 Dated the 12th day of December 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by TEMALOTI FAKAOSI (2) of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint Promo for film American Beauty – wrongly classified – explicit sexual content at 7. 30pm – offensive behaviour FindingsStandard 1 – context - extreme brevity – no upholdStandard 7 – not explicit – classification appropriate – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the film American Beauty, to be shown at 8. 30pm that evening, was screened on TV2 at about 7. 30pm on Sunday 10 November 2002. Among the scenes in the promo was one of a couple engaged in sexual intercourse. [2] Dr Exton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the depiction of explicit sexual behaviour, at a time when children were the target audience, breached the standards. [3] In response, TVNZ said the scene was brief and non-explicit and not inappropriate during the PGR time-band. It declined to uphold the complaint....

Complaint60 Minutes – promo – clip of Norm Hewitt – use of word "shit" – offensive language – breach of good taste and decency – breach of classification codes and time bands – not mindful of the effect on children – explicit material unacceptable in a promo FindingsStandard G2 – quietly used vernacular figure of speech – context – no uphold Standard G8 – appropriate classification – no uphold Standard G12 – important social message for younger viewers – no uphold Standard G24 – no violence or other explicit material – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] A promo for the current affairs programme 60 Minutes contained a 30-second clip of professional rugby player, Norm Hewitt. It was broadcast on 20 October 2001 at 6. 35pm during One News....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The hosts of the Jay-Jay, Mike and Dom show interviewed an eliminated contestant from The Bachelor about her experience on the show. At the end of the item, one of the hosts introduced the new 'Bachelorette game show' titled, 'What's your cucumber number? ' The premise was for contestants to put cucumbers into their mouths and bite down. Whichever contestant could bite down the farthest along the cucumber would be the winner. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that this was demeaning to women and unsuitable for children. The broadcast was not outside audience expectations of the station and breakfast radio shows generally, and the innuendo would have gone over the heads of most children....

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....

ComplaintHolmes – air accident – advice for travellers to dress as for a bonfire – offensive – sensational – distasteful FindingsStandard G14 – not applicable Standard G16 – perhaps flippant comments but would not cause alarm Standard G20 – not relevant This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An item on Holmes, broadcast on TV One on 3 November 2000 beginning at 7. 00pm, gave advice to travellers about how to improve their chances of surviving an aircraft disaster. The item followed an aircraft accident in Taipei. R P Worthington complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the subject matter had been handled in a distasteful manner, and was inflammatory and biased. In the complainant’s view, the way in which the item had been written was particularly offensive....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Darpan – report on first Hindu conference in New Zealand – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness, programme classification, programme information and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – report was not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – privacy standard relates to an individual – no individual specified by the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed in the item – balance standard did not apply – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Council spokesperson explained what the conference was about – viewers were made aware that the conference had a number of themes – viewers would not have been misled – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – report was a fair and accurate reflection of the event – not upheld Standard 7 (programme…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Morning Rumble – breakfast show hosts on The Rock discussed a story featured on Close Up the previous night about two girls who alleged that, twelve-years prior, an ex-All Black had engaged in sexual activity with one of them while she had been unconscious – the hosts noted that the girl had accepted a payment from the man to settle the matter – one host made the comment, “See, all I see is that that woman and her mate have cashed in at both ends” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, controversial issues, fairness and responsible programming standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheldStandard 6 (fairness) – some elements of unfairness – however, hosts entitled to voice their opinions in the manner in which they did – freedom of expression – not upheldStandard 4…...

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 19893 News – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 4 (controversial issues – viewpoints), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness) and 8 (responsible programming) – selection of items to include in news programmes is a matter of editorial discretion – complainant did not specify which parts of the programme breached standards – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] 3 News was broadcast on TV3 at 6pm on Tuesday 29 June 2010. Complaint [2] River Tucker complained to TVWorks Ltd, the broadcaster, alleging that “the lack of any in-depth reporting into issues that are important to New Zealanders” on 3 News breached standards relating to the discussion of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming....

SummaryPromos for Catherine the Great were shown prior to its broadcast on 7 February 1999 beginning at 8. 30pm. The promos contained some nudity and sex scenes, as did the programme itself. Boyd Henderson of Oxford complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, through the Broadcasting Standards Authority, that the sex scenes in the trailers and the programme itself breached the good taste and decency standard. As a general observation, he also complained that the broadcaster failed to provide warnings as to the explicit content of programmes and promos. Many New Zealanders, he said, were like him and objected to watching such material. As TVNZ failed to respond to Mr Henderson’s complaint, he referred it to the Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

ComplaintBookmarks – book reading – offensive language; unsuitable for children FindingsPrinciple 1 – potential breach averted by words being beeped – no language or concepts which would offend – not targeted at children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An extract from the book "They who do not Grieve" by Sia Figiel was read by her on the Bookmarks programme broadcast on National Radio on 2 December 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm. Part of the extract was masked by an audible beep. Douglas Bacon complained to Radio New Zealand Ltd that the extract read was vulgar and that he could hardly believe the "obscenities" it contained. He said he took into account that it was broadcast during the early evening when younger people could be listening....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item contained graphic of sign “For Sale, NZ SOEs” – allegedly in breach of controversial issues, accuracy, fairness and responsible programming standards FindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – graphic displayed in the introduction was not a “material point of fact” – given the extensive coverage on the Government’s proposed partial asset sales, viewers would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] A One News item reported on the continuing debate over who owns New Zealand water, as part of the wider discussion about the Government’s proposal to sell state-owned enterprises (SOEs). A graphic of a sign saying, “For sale, NZ SOEs” was displayed behind the newsreader during the 18-second introduction to the item. The item was broadcast on TV One on 10 July 2012....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-057:Ritchie and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-057 PDF374. 58 KB...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Neighbours at War reported on allegations made by the complainant against her neighbour. The Authority did not uphold her complaint that the programme was biased and distorted the true situation, and that her cell phone footage was broadcast without her consent. The broadcaster dealt with the situation in an even-handed way and the complainant was given every opportunity to tell her side of the story. She was not treated unfairly, and she had consented to her involvement in the programme. Not Upheld: Fairness, Privacy, Accuracy, Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children’s InterestsIntroduction[1] An episode of Neighbours at War, a reality TV series involving disputes between neighbours, reported on allegations made by the complainant, EP, against her neighbour. The complainant took part in re-enactments and both neighbours were interviewed....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Radio Tarana reported on the Sanil Kumar Medical Fund, which had been set up for the treatment of a young Fijian-Indian man in New Zealand who had subsequently been deported to Fiji and died. There were allegations by the immediate family of Mr Kumar and others that the fund was being misused by its directors. The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that the broadcasts were unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair, denigrating and caused panic among the public. The broadcaster made reasonable efforts to provide balance and fairness, no inaccuracies could be identified, the discrimination and denigration standard was not applicable and the broadcasts were not presented irresponsibly....