Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-081 Dated the 26th day of June 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by AUCKLAND TROTTING CLUB (Inc) Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

ComplaintHolmes – item on Erotica exhibition – offensive behaviour Findings: Standard G6 – no uphold Standard G7 – not applicable Standard G11 – not applicable Standard G12 – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary A Holmes item broadcast on TV One on 4 August 2000 between 7. 00–7. 30pm dealt with a trade fair held in Auckland entitled Erotica 2000. According to the organisers, the fair was intended to change people’s perception of erotica being sleazy and to present it as mainstream. Dennis Walker complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the broadcast promoted the sex industry as a viable lifestyle and that TVNZ was irresponsible in screening such material. In his view, all aspects of the sex industry degraded women. In its response, TVNZ noted that the broadcast had taken a "light-hearted look" at the trade fair....

ComplaintHolmes – comment that Ponsonby Rugby Club had produced the most All Blacks – inaccurate – TVNZ upheld complaint as technical breach of Principle 5 and apologised – action taken insufficient FindingsAction taken sufficient – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] During a Holmes broadcast on TV One at 7. 00pm on 25 August 2003, a reporter commented that Ponsonby Rugby Club had produced the most All Blacks. The statement was repeated later in the programme by the presenter. [2] Mr Burke complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the statement was inaccurate. [3] TVNZ upheld the complaint and apologised by letter to the complainant and members of his rugby club. [4] Dissatisfied that TVNZ's action upon upholding the complaint did not include an on-air correction and apology, Mr Burke referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

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...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-040:Group Opposed to Advertising of Liquor and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-040 PDF314. 19 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-005:Georgeson and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-005 PDF365. 46 KB...

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....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-102:McDonald and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-102 PDF330. 38 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-139:Harang and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-139 PDF295. 26 KB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-074–076:New Zealand Shooters Rights Association Inc, Otago-Southland Firearms Coalition and Beltowski and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-074, 1992-075, 1992-076 PDF1. 9 MB...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-044:Hansen and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-044 PDF347. 71 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 95/95 Dated the 21st day of September 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by ALLAN E WEBB of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-098:Meroiti and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1992-098 PDF258. 04 KB...

Complaints under s. 8(1)(a) and s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 1. Holmes – 18 and 19 November 2003 – complainant director of Network Visas NZ Ltd – in dispute with 13 Romanian students – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – not company’s registered office – complainant given inadequate opportunity to respond – a number of factual inaccuracies – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair 2. Holmes – 18 November 2003 – complainant’s home shown on item as location where business operated from – after broadcast, complainant visited by landlord – complainant’s wife who operates beauty business from the address felt intimidated – alleged breach of privacy 3....

Complaint Holmes – series of items on the "brain drain" – Richard Poole – newspaper advertisement – Business Roundtable backing – unbalanced – news source lacked integrity FindingsStandard G6 – items lacked balance – broadcaster not impartial – Poole’s integrity not forcefully challenged – uphold Standard G15 – Poole an "information source" as required by standard – broadcaster failed to ascertain adequately his integrity/reliability – uphold OrdersBroadcast of statement$2,000 costs to Crown This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Items broadcast on the Holmes show on TV One on 4, 5 and 6 October 2000 dealt with a perceived "brain drain" whereby young, educated New Zealanders were allegedly leaving New Zealand permanently for better jobs and an enhanced lifestyle overseas. Holmes is broadcast between 7. 00pm and 7. 30pm on weekdays....

Complaint Holmes – interview with Prime Minister about refugees – reference to Nauru as a pile of bird shit – offensive language – inappropriate for school children FindingsStandard G2 – crude but acceptable in context – no uphold Standard G12 – minimal impact on children – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] Nauru was described as a "pile of bird shit" by the presenter on Holmes when interviewing the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about the Government’s decision to take 150 refugees from the Tampa. The item was broadcast on Holmes on 3 September 2001 beginning at 7. 00pm. [2] Alfred Howard complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the phrase was totally inappropriate and offensive. He expressed particular concern that school children would hear the language....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-138:Leckey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-138 PDF864. 85 KB...

ComplaintHolmes – interview with Parekura Horomia – comments made during filming break – broadcast of private conversation – breach of privacy FindingsPrivacy – Privacy Principle (iii) – intentional interference with Mr Horomia's interest in solitude or seclusion – offensive – no consent – insufficient public interest – uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An interview with the Minister of Maori Affairs designate, Parekura Horomia, was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 24 July 2000. In an addendum to the interview, viewers heard a recording of comments made by Mr Horomia during a filming break about his distrust of the media. Jo Crowley complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the broadcast breached Mr Horomia's privacy....

Summary An item on the Holmes programme examined the situation of a woman and her eight year old son who was described as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder Syndrome. Footage of the child, exhibiting what were said to be some behavioural problems of the syndrome, was shown on the programme which was broadcast on TV One on 4 March 1999 commencing at 7. 00 pm. Ms Burnell complained to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(c) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 that the programme violated the child’s rights of privacy and confidentiality. He was identified by his first name, his face was visible, and he clearly expressed his total opposition to being filmed for public viewing, she wrote....