Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1998-035 Decision No: 1998-036 Dated the 23rd day of April 1998 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION (Wanganui Conservancy) and W F CARLIN of Wanganui Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod J Withers...

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989New Zealand’s Next Top Model – modelling competition – one judge was shown wearing military medals – allegedly in breach of law and order standard Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – wearing of the medals was passive and incidental to the programme – did not actively draw attention to them such that the programme could be said to promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of New Zealand's Next Top Model was broadcast on TV3 at 7. 30pm on 13 March 2009. Thirty-three young women had been chosen from auditions around New Zealand to compete in the semi-finals in Queenstown, to become "New Zealand’s Next Top Model"....

Complaint under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item about Work and Income computer error leading to disclosure of information about some Work and Income clients, and ramifications for beneficiaries – allegedly sensationalist, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 2 (law and order) – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 4 (balance) – Ministry’s position not adequately presented – upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item contained many inaccuracies – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – item unfair to Ministry and its chief executive – upheldOrder Broadcast of a statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast {1} An item on One News, broadcast on TV One on 27 November 2003, reported on a computer error made by Work and Income, a division of the Ministry of Social Development, which had caused some information about some Work and Income clients to be sent to other clients....

Summary An advertisement for a light truck contained language which had been the subject of complaints to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board (ASCB). The Board’s decision on those complaints was reported in a news item on TV3’s 3 News on 23 March between 6. 00–7. 00pm. Extracts from the advertisement, including the offending language, was included in the item. Mr Shierlaw complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that by screening the advertisement before 8. 30pm, as required by the ASCB, TV3 had failed to comply with standard G5 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters to observe the principles of the law. As TV3 did not respond within the statutory 20 working day period, Mr Shierlaw referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

Complaints under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item about file sharing software – showed images from a snuff movie three times during short item – woman seen begging not to be filmed with a gun held to her head – gunshot heard on one occasion but with no image – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, privacy, fairness, children’s interests and violence standards – broadcaster upheld complaints under Standard 1, spoke to news staff and broadcast on-air apology – complainants dissatisfied with decision and action taken FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – broadcaster did not encourage viewers to break the law or glamorise the criminal activity shown – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – irrespective of whether the snuff movie was real or fake, no breach of privacy – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – unable to determine whether woman treated fairly – decline…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 198960 Minutes – item about the murder of Deidre Tobin by her partner Craig Jackson – Mr Jackson found not guilty by reason of insanity – interviewed Ms Tobin’s family and friends plus two detectives who believed Mr Jackson was faking his insanity – allegedly in breach of law and order, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – nothing inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – Authority unable to determine the position of the Crown solicitor – overall programme was balanced – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Jackson, Dr Simpson or the Tobin family – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A 60 Minutes item entitled “Insanely Jealous?...

ComplaintOne News – item reported survey of teenagers’ attitudes – suggested amongst other things trend to drugs away from alcohol and disrespect for New Zealand Flag and Anthem – inaccurate – biased FindingsStandard G1 – not inaccurate – no uphold Standard G5 – no disrespect for principles of law – no uphold Standard G6 – not unfair or unbalanced – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The findings of a survey of teenagers were reported in an item on One News broadcast on TV One at 6. 00pm on 29 October 2001. Among the findings were changes in attitudes to drugs, the National Anthem and the New Zealand Flag. [2] Kenneth Lord complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the findings were biased and amounted to propaganda....

Summary District Court Judge Martin Beattie was acquitted on 1 August 1997 on a number of dishonesty charges after a jury trial. It was a high-profile case. On 27 July 1998, a news item revealed the contents of a High Court ruling made before the trial in which the judge had ruled inadmissible a report prepared by a QC at the request of the Chief District Court Judge in the early stages of the investigation. The item reported that the judgment disclosed the QC’s opinion that Judge Beattie was guilty of fraud. Mr Clayton complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the QC’s opinion about the judge’s behaviour was "utterly irrelevant", and the disclosure not only breached broadcasting standards, but also invaded Judge Beattie’s privacy....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 66/95 Dated the 27th day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by MIKE IRVINE of Auckland Broadcaster 95 bFM Auckland University J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

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…...

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....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During a segment of The Project, the presenters discussed whether it was illegal to wear headphones while driving. One of the presenters, a well-known New Zealand comedian, said that he wore headphones while driving ‘because it drowns out the sound of the seatbelt warning’. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that the presenter’s comment trivialised an important road safety issue. The segment as a whole carried a positive road safety message, with the presenters sharing their surprise that wearing headphones while driving was not illegal in New Zealand (though distracted drivers could still be charged with careless driving). The comment was clearly intended to be humorous and the reactions of the other presenters balanced the comment and signalled to viewers that wearing your seatbelt was important....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Shortland Street – showed characters smoking cigarettes and dropping their cigarette butts on the ground – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, and law and order standards FindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) and Standard 2 (law and order) – footage of characters smoking and dropping cigarette butts on the ground would not have offended most viewers and did not encourage viewers to break the law – acceptable in context and relevant to developing storyline – behaviour not portrayed as desirable – well within broadcaster’s right to employ dramatic licence – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Introduction [1] An episode of Shortland Street showed two characters smoking cigarettes before dropping their cigarette butts on the ground. The programme was broadcast on TV2 at 7pm on 19 April 2013....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-059 Dated the 15th day of May 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by T K ANDERSON of Auckland Broadcaster RADIO PACIFIC LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates A Martin...

This decision was successfully appealed in the High Court: CIV 2011-485-840 PDF137. 27 KB Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Sunday – discussed anniversary of massacre at Aramoana – interviewed policeman who was involved – said “fucking” twice – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, responsible programming and children’s interests standardsFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – Authority’s research suggests majority of viewers would consider “fucking” unacceptable before 8....

Complaint under section 8(1C) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Campbell Live – item on shoplifting – included footage of “security expert” shoplifting from two stores – allegedly in breach of law and order and balance Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Campbell Live, broadcast on TV3 at 7pm on Monday 9 June 2008, featured a story on shoplifting and the effects it was having both on the business community and New Zealand consumers. [2] The presenter introduced the item by saying: Tonight. . . we look at others caught on camera, caught shoplifting. In fact. . ....

The Authority did not uphold complaints that an item on Kerre McIvor Mornings breached the accuracy standard. The content was likely to be interpreted as commentary and opinion, and not statements of fact to which the accuracy standard applied. In terms of the balance standard, it was clearly presented from the host’s perspective. Given the nature of the programme, listeners were unlikely to have been misled by the omission of other views. The Authority also found that, in its context, the segment was unlikely to cause widespread undue offence or undermine widely shared community standards, did not actively promote serious antisocial or illegal activity and was not unfair to the Government or Prime Minister. Accordingly it did not breach the good taste and decency, law and order or fairness standards.      Not Upheld: Accuracy, Balance, Good taste and decency, Law and order, Fairness...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – item reported that Olympic medallist Nadzeya Ostapchuk had missed the deadline to appeal her positive drugs test – sports reporter commented that this meant New Zealander Valerie Adams was “one step closer to getting her gold medal”, and the presenter made reference to Belarus’s “crazy president” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, controversial issues, accuracy, fairness, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programming standards FindingsStandards 1 (good taste and decency), 2 (law and order), 4 (controversial issues), 5 (accuracy), 6 (fairness), 7 (discrimination and denigration) and 8 (responsible programming) – sports reporter and presenter were engaging in light-hearted banter and their comments did not carry any malice or invective – that New Zealand allegedly had a worse history of cheating than Belarus is not an issue of broadcasting standards – not upheld This headnote does not…...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Afternoons with Jim Mora – host and panellists discussed coroner’s recommendation – panellist criticised recommendation and stated, “for god’s sake, somebody drown that coroner” – panellist’s comment allegedly in breach of standards relating to good taste and decency, law and order, accuracy, fairness, and discrimination and denigrationFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency), Standard 2 (law and order), Standard 5 (accuracy), Standard 6 (fairness), and Standard 7 (discrimination and denigration) – panellist’s comment was a flippant remark used to express his criticism of the coroner’s recommendation – was not intended to be taken literally or as a serious encouragement to commit unlawful acts – comment aimed at coroner in his professional capacity and so was not unfair to him – coroners not a section of the community – comment was opinion and not a factual statement to which standard 5 applied – not…...