Search Rapua

Summary A soccer game between Croatia and Yugoslavia ended in a riot, according to a news item on One Network News broadcast on TV One on 19 August 1999 between 6. 00–7. 00pm. The footage which accompanied the item showed baton-wielding police, players and spectators fighting on the soccer field. Gordon Sunde complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item had been fabricated and was totally misleading. The game, he said, had been played without incident. The video clip shown related to a game which had been played between the same two countries in 1991 and had no relationship to the one being reported. He sought an apology and correction. TVNZ responded to the complaint informally and advised that a correction would be prepared for broadcast. It explained that the footage had been used by mistake and apologised to Mr Sunde....

Complaint 3 News (2 items) – Ice As – filming of car accident – privacy – request to stop filming – use of footage in comedy show Findings(1) News items – privacy – public interest – no uphold (2) Ice As – Privacy Principle (iii) – insensitivity – intentional interference – harassment – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Footage of a car accident was shown during two news items about bad weather and related problems faced by drivers in the Queenstown area. The items were broadcast on 3 News on TV3 on 11 and 12 June 2000 between 6. 00pm and 7. 00pm. More detailed footage was also screened during an episode of Ice As, broadcast on TV3 at 11. 00pm on 17 June 2000. CD complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

The University of Otago (the University) complained that three broadcasts by TVNZ, about sexual assault allegations by former and current students of the University, breached the fairness, balance and accuracy standards of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. The complaint about Sunday was not upheld, but aspects of the complaint about Breakfast and 1 News were upheld. Overall, the Sunday programme was balanced, as it included comment from the University and was clearly signalled as coming from the perspective of the women interviewed. No material inaccuracies were identified, and the University was given a reasonable opportunity to respond. However, the Breakfast and 1 News items focussed more specifically on perceived shortcomings of the University and its decision not to be interviewed, resulting in unfairness to the University. The Authority also found that the Breakfast programme lacked balance....

In an episode of Mai Home Run, one of the radio presenters related a story about accidentally taking and not returning a bag containing items, including a gaming console, belonging to Lil’ Romeo. The presenter also disclosed the name of one of the people involved in the story. The Authority upheld the complaint that the item breached the privacy standard, finding that the named individual was identifiable and would have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to the information disclosed. The Authority also found the disclosure to be highly offensive to a reasonable person, as it had the potential to significantly damage the named person’s reputation. The Authority did not uphold the complaint under the law and order standard, finding that in context the broadcast did not encourage or actively promote serious anti-social or illegal behaviour....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News – item reported that Plunketline telephone service to be replaced by broader Healthline service – Minister of Health questioned on whether her support for Healthline was consistent with election pledge in 1999 to support Plunketline – allegedly unbalanced and interview edited unfairly Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item omitted Minister’s explanation for the change of her political point of view – unbalanced – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item omitted Minister’s comment on central issue – unfair – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] The replacement of Plunketline, a telephone service for caregivers, with a broader Healthline telephone service was dealt with in an item broadcast on One News beginning at 6. 00pm on TV One on 7 July 2004....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]A promo for NCIS and NCIS: LA showed scenes of guns being fired, photos of a dead body and someone getting punched in the face, among other things. The Authority upheld a complaint that the broadcast did not adequately consider children's interests. The content was not suitable for unsupervised child viewers, so the promo should have received a higher classification than G (for general audiences). On this basis the Authority found that the promo also breached the violence standard, as the broadcaster did not exercise adequate care and discretion when dealing with violent content. Upheld: Children's Interests, ViolenceOrder: Section 16(4) – $500 costs to the Crown Introduction[1] A promo for NCIS and NCIS: LA showed scenes of guns being fired, photos of a dead body and someone getting punched in the face, among other things....

The Authority has upheld complaints from two complainants about a segment of Punjabi talkback programme Panthak Vichar, broadcast on Access Community Radio Inc (Planet FM). During the programme, the hosts made a number of allegations against the complainants, regarding their fundraising activities and whether they were trustworthy, and played a recorded phone conversation with Jaspreet Singh on-air. The Authority found that the comments reflected negatively on the complainants, and that Jaspreet Singh would not have known that the phone call would be played on-air. The Authority upheld the complaint under the fairness standard but did not uphold the remaining aspects of the complaint. Upheld: Fairness. Not Upheld: Accuracy, Privacy, Good Taste and Decency, Programme Information, Discrimination and Denigration...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-040 Dated the 18th day of April 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by COMPLAINANT H of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO LIBERTY NETWORK J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-106 Decision No: 1996-107 Decision No: 1996-108 Decision No: 1996-109 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ROYAL AUSTRALASIAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS (2) and HEALTHCARE OTAGO (2) Broadcaster TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-123 Decision No: 1997-124 Dated the 25th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by R J A MILLER of Invercargill and L SMITH of Whangarei Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) and 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Close Up – item on group of duck hunters – hunters shown drinking alcohol and using firearms – brands of alcohol visible – man shown taking his pants off and diving onto a blow-up doll – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, balance, accuracy, fairness, children’s interests and liquor promotion standards FindingsStandard 11 (liquor) – item contained liquor promotion that was not socially responsible – upheld Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – footage of man with blow-up doll and mixing of firearms and alcohol strayed beyond the bounds of good taste and decency – upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not adequately consider the interests of child viewers – upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Talkback with Michael Laws – host made comments about the complainant in relation to discussion about whether tobacco should be phased out as a legal product – allegedly in breach of privacy, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – subsumed into consideration of Standard 6 Standard 6 (fairness) – not necessary to inform the complainant he would be referred to on the programme – host misrepresented complainant's views when he told listeners that the complainant believes smoking is a “Pakeha plot to kill Māori” and tells his clients that –complainant’s personal and professional reputation affected – unfair – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – complainant was identifiable – complainant did not have reasonable expectation email correspondence would remain private when aware of the host’s media role – no private facts disclosed – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Radio Pacific – talkback segment discussing Ahmed Zaoui – host said “I don’t care if we shoot him and send him out in a dog food can” – several other statements relating to Mr Zaoui’s activities – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inaccurateFindings Principle 1 (good taste and decency) – context – not upheldPrinciple 6 (accuracy) – decline to determine accuracy of one statement – two statements inaccurate – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast[1] A talkback segment on Radio Pacific in the early evening on 11 November 2004 discussed the Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui. The host expressed strong views that Mr Zaoui should leave New Zealand, and said “I don’t care if we shoot him and send him out in a dog food can”....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about improving the safety of the site of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster – reported thousands had died during and after the event – allegedly inaccurateFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – although a human and environmental catastrophe, UN and WHO sources suggest deaths of less than 100 – upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] Fresh concerns about improving the safety of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster site in the Ukraine were covered in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 13 May 2005. It was reported that “thousands of people died during and after the disaster”. Complaint [2] Allan Dewar complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the item was inaccurate....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 One News and Tonight – item reported on the release of the "Sutch Papers" by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service – allegedly unbalanced and inaccurate Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – Sutch Papers released did not confirm that "Sutch had a longstanding association with the KGB" as stated in the item – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 6 June 2008 and repeated on Tonight at 10. 30pm the same evening, reported on the release of the Sutch Papers by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS)....

Complaint under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – item allegedly inaccurate, unbalanced, unfair, and in breach of privacy and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – decline to determine under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standards 4 (balance) – not upheld Standards 5 (accuracy) and 6 (fairness) – majority uphold Standard 8 (programme information) – subsumed into consideration of Standards 5 and 6 No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] RT made a formal complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd about an item broadcast on TV One’s Sunday programme at 7. 30pm on 1 July 2007. It was alleged that the programme breached Standards 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the Free-to-Air Television Code. [2] The complainant referred the complaint to the Authority under section 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Frontseat – contained brief scene from A Clockwork Orange where a man is beaten – programme was classified G and broadcast on a Saturday morning at 7. 55am – allegedly in breach of programme classification and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 7 (programme classification) – scene complained about contained material which was unsuitable for children – broadcaster should have classified as a PGR programme – upheld (majority) Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster did not exclude material likely to be unsuitable for children – inappropriately classified and broadcast during a G time-band – broadcaster failed to consider the interests of child viewers – upheld (majority)No OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Frontseat, a New Zealand-made arts programme, was broadcast at 7. 55am on TV One on Saturday 18 March 2006....

An appeal against this decision was dismissed in the High Court: CIV 2004-485-2035 PDF1. 53 MBComplaint under s....

ComplaintSunday – item about a dog attack on complainant’s daughter – interviewed two men who were the dog’s owners and who had pleaded guilty – questions raised about aspects of police case – unfair – unbalanced – inaccurate – dog owners' actions condoned FindingsStandard 2 and Guideline 2b – dog owners’ actions not condoned – no uphold Standard 4 and Guideline 4b – reasonable opportunities given to complainant to participate – no uphold Standard 5 and Guidelines 5d and 5e – two factual inaccuracies – park given incorrect name – upheld by TVNZ – colour of dog shown on police flyer not acknowledged as possibly incorrect – uphold – no other inaccuracies Standard 6 and Guidelines 6b, 6c and 6e – complainant advised TVNZ forcefully that he did not want to participate – late information included in item which created ambivalence but not put to complainant – not unfair in view of complainant’s stance…...