Search Rapua

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-031 Dated the 10th day of April 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by PETER JACKSON of Kaitaia Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Checkpoint – live telephone interview with Napier resident watching police trying to deal with an armed man barricaded inside a house and who had been shooting at police – host questioned resident about what he could see and hear and what the police were doing – allegedly in breach of law and order standard Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – information provided by interviewee would not have assisted the armed man – no evidence that the information disclosed affected the maintenance of law and order – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] During a segment on Checkpoint, broadcast on Radio New Zealand National at 5....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-103 Dated the 14th day of August 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by IVAN A HANSEN of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]During Morning Talk with Mark Sainsbury a caller to the programme discussed her experience with divorce legal proceedings in the Family Court and subsequent appeals. A complaint was made that, by allowing the caller to disclose details of the proceedings, the broadcaster breached the law and order standard. The Authority expressed serious concerns with the way in which the call was allowed to progress, as private information was disclosed by the caller which had been suppressed in the Family Court. The Authority found the broadcaster needs to be more alert to the issues surrounding Family Court matters and similar proceedings as issues of contempt, as well as fairness and privacy, may arise....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1992-077:Garbutt and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 1992-077 PDF336. 54 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 76/95 Dated the 31st day of July 1995 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by P R PARRY of Auckland Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates W J Fraser R McLeod...

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. . ....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 19893 News – item on the sentencing of convicted rapist Roger Kahui included a brief re-enactment showing actor forcing entry into victim’s home – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order, programme information, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – item made it clear to viewers that it was a re-enactment – stylised dramatisation – contextual factors – not 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 9 (children’s interests) – item was brief – unlikely to disturb child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld Standard 8 (programme information) – standard not relevant – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision.…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority declined to uphold a complaint that a number of cooking and fishing programmes 'perpetuate the exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of 63 million animals. . . per year'. Killing and preparing animals to eat is a fact of life, and the complaint was based primarily on personal preferences, not broadcasting standards issues. Not Upheld: Good Taste and Decency, Law and Order, Controversial Issues, Fairness, Discrimination and Denigration, Responsible Programming, Children's Interests, ViolenceIntroduction[1] Peta Feral complained about a number of cooking and fishing shows aired on Choice TV. Ms Feral argued that these programmes 'perpetuate the exploitation, abuse, torture and murder of 63 million animals. . . per year'. As examples, Ms Feral referred to footage of live oysters being eaten and catch-and-release fishing, both of which she alleged to be barbaric and cruel....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An episode of Criminal Minds featured the murder of three restaurant workers during an armed robbery, prompting the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Unit to re-open a similar cold case that occurred six years earlier. The episode contained violence and drug use. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the episode breached broadcasting standards relating to responsible programming, children’s interests and law and order. The Authority found that while the episode contained challenging content, it was classified AO and was preceded by an adequate warning. The programme’s classification, pre-broadcast warning and established reputation as a crime drama enabled viewers to make an informed viewing decision. The programme did not contain visual acts of violence, and the drug use was not portrayed in an instructional or encouraging manner and was part of the episode’s narrative context....

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....

During the programme Tim Roxborogh & Tim Beveridge Afternoons, the hosts discussed Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine. In response to Roxborogh’s question of ‘how do you stop Putin? ’ Beveridge answered that the only thing would be ‘…a bullet to the back of Putin’s head. He has to be taken out by someone. ’ The complainant alleged that these comments breached the good taste and decency, violence, law and order, and fairness standards as they incited violence. The Authority did not uphold the complaint, finding the comments did not reach a threshold justifying regulatory intervention. In particular, the Authority noted the comments did not amount to a threat or call to action, were not likely to incite action against President Putin, and were made in the context of a discussion about President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which has led to significant loss of life and the displacement of Ukrainians....

Warning: This decision contains content that some readers may find distressing. An item on 1 News reporting on a mass shooting in Buffalo, US, showed an edited clip from the attacker’s livestream video. The clip, approximately 16 seconds long and without audio, showed the masked attacker driving into the supermarket carpark, stopping his vehicle, getting out of the car and raising a gun. The complaint alleged the broadcast of the clip breached the good taste and decency, violence, and law and order broadcasting standards....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint alleging comments made by commentators during a golf tournament breached the law and order standard. While discussing the difficulty of the course, a commentator suggested ‘Charles Manson put this [pin position] in! ’ Later in the tournament, the commentator said, ‘whoever set that flag, I can just picture him in his room at night catching flies and pulling the wings off them and watching them suffer’. The Authority found this would not have encouraged, promoted or glamorised illegal or anti-social behaviour in breach of the standard. Not Upheld: Law and Order...

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....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News– item reported on the Warriors rugby league team’s anti-bullying campaign – included video footage of high school students fighting – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violenceFindings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – introduction clearly signposted that item contained violent material – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – broadcaster exercised sufficient care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Eating Media Lunch – presenter removed a cat from a microwave oven and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you? ” – placed the cat back in the microwave – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency and inconsistent with the maintenance of law and orderFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – not inconsistent with the maintenance of law and order – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] At the conclusion of an episode of Eating Media Lunch at around 10. 30pm on TV2 on 19 April 2005, the presenter was seen to remove a cat from a microwave oven. He held the cat up to his face and said “probably need a couple more minutes, don’t you?...

SummaryAbortion was a topic touched on during the talkback programme Banksie on Sunday, broadcast on Radio Pacific between 10:00am – 2:00pm on Sunday 14 April 1996. The host (Hon John Banks MP) described doctors who perform abortions as baby murderers, and claimed that the aborted foetuses were put into the hospital waste disposal systems or in "Kleensaks". Mr Sawyers complained to Radio Pacific Ltd that the "highly emotive" remarks were inaccurate, unbalanced, and unfair to the doctors who carried out abortions. Explaining that the host had been expressing his own strong opinion, that other hosts had different opinions, and that callers were able to present a diversity of views on the subject, Radio Pacific denied that the standards had been contravened. Dissatisfied with Radio Pacific's decision, Mr Sawyers referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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…...