Search Rapua

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Te Hikoi Mahanga – included footage of a car performing burnouts on a public road – presenters shown laughing and cheering – allegedly in breach of law and order Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – item promoted, glamorised and condoned illegal behaviour – upheld No Order This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A programme called Te Hikoi Mahanga was broadcast on Māori TV at 8. 30pm on Thursday 8 January 2009. During the broadcast, the presenters were shown surfing at various New Zealand beaches, and talking to some of the local people. [2] At one point, the programme’s presenters were shown talking to a group of young men who had also been surfing. The young men then got into their car and began performing “burnouts” on the road....

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(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Paul Holmes item – 84-year-old woman suffered fourth degree burns during cryosurgery in her mouth – caused by malfunctioning equipment – OSH prosecuted the oral surgeon but the case was dismissed – item reported expert evidence that equipment should have been serviced annually, but had not been serviced since 1974 – surgeon granted name suppression – viewer feedback on a subsequent programme described surgeon as a “mongrel” who should have his name published on the internet – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate, unfair and in breach of law and order – broadcaster upheld balance complaintFindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – breaches of name suppression order outside Authority’s jurisdiction – decline to determine – did not encourage viewers to publish name – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – action taken by broadcaster was sufficient – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – three matters misleading and inaccurate –…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Newshub reported on the shooting of two Israeli police officers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem. The segment featured footage of officers being chased and shot at, followed by footage of a man being surrounded and shot at, a blurred shot of a dead body on the ground and a body bag on a stretcher. The Authority upheld a complaint that the item breached the good taste and decency, children’s interests and violence standards. The Authority recognised the public interest in the item and that it reported on important and newsworthy events. However, the Authority considered the item should have been preceded by a warning for the potentially disturbing violent content, to enable viewers to make an informed viewing decision, and allow an opportunity to exercise discretion....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-111 Decision No: 1996-112 Dated the 12th day of September 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by M FRASER of Wellington Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989One News – repetition of footage showing an unprovoked attack on Korean youths by two “skinheads” – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, law and order and violence standards. Findings Standard 1 (good taste and decency) – repetition of sequence helped emphasise vicious nature of attack – contextual factors – not upheld Standard 2 (law and order) – item did not glamorise behaviour or encourage imitation – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – repetition of sequence not gratuitous – verbal warning sufficient – justified in the context – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on One News, broadcast on TV One at 6pm on 1 May 2007, reported the sentencing of two “skinheads” involved in a racist attack on a group of Korean youths in Nelson....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Promo for Benidorm – showed a man being slapped in the face by two different women – allegedly in breach of law and order, children’s interests and violence standards Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – promo did not encourage viewers to break the law or promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld Standard 9 (children’s interests) – broadcaster sufficiently considered the interests of child viewers – not upheld Standard 10 (violence) – violence was slapstick humour – broadcaster exercised care and discretion – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] A promo for three comedy programmes Bonkers, Benidorm and The Sunshine Girls was broadcast on TV One at 12. 27pm on Thursday 18 October 2007....

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1993-169:Bracey and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1993-169 PDF406. 94 KB...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Checkpoint discussed the return of a child after she went missing off the coast of New Zealand with her father. Extensive media coverage reported that the pair had sailed to Australia on a catamaran and that the family was involved in a custody dispute, with proceedings pending under the Care of Children Act 2004. The item aired after the child had been located and featured an interview with the child’s mother, who discussed her fears for her daughter’s safety, and their reunion. The Authority did not uphold a complaint that this item breached the child’s privacy and treated her unfairly. The information discussed during the interview was in the public domain at the time of broadcast, and the topic was treated sensitively and respectfully by the interviewer....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an episode of Breakfast, in which the hosts and viewer feedback discussed people stealing at supermarket self-service checkouts by putting in the wrong code for items they are purchasing. The Authority found the programme did not actively encourage viewers to steal or break the law in breach of the law and order standard. Across the programme as a whole, the hosts and viewers offered a range of views on the ethics of stealing at self-checkouts, including strong views against such behaviour, and clearly acknowledged it was ‘theft’ and illegal. The tone of the discussion was consistent with audience expectations of Breakfast and its hosts, and would not have unduly offended or distressed viewers, so the good taste and decency standard was also not breached....

Paula Rose declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the Authority's determination of this complaint. Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ] A panel segment during Larry Williams Drive discussed a recent High Court action brought by Phillip Smith against the Department of Corrections (Corrections), in which Mr Smith argued that his freedom of expression had been breached by Corrections staff preventing him from wearing his toupee. At the conclusion of the panel discussion, Mr Williams stated: ‘I say Janet, solitary confinement 24/7, dark room, with his toupee, with a little bit of waterboarding just to make it interesting’. The other panellists laughed, with one commenting, ‘You’re a hard man, Larry’....

ComplaintHolmes – interview – inappropriate reference to Noam Chomsky – "he should be shot" FindingsStandard 2; Standard 5; Standard 6 – colloquialism – contextual factors – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An interview with forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs was broadcast on Holmes on TV One at 7. 00pm on 2 September 2002. Having ascertained that Ms Reichs knew Noam Chomsky, described as an anthropologist (sic), the interviewer (Mr Holmes) commented; "he should be shot". [2] The Kearneys complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, stating that in the context in which it was spoken the comment "constituted the worst and most disgraceful abuse of the position of an interviewer". [3] In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ said the remark carried no malice and was simply a figure of speech, spoken in jest....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Illegal New Zealand – episode looked at the illegal trading of guns in New Zealand – included footage of the presenter practising target shooting – presenter shown holding a shotgun in firing position – camera briefly tracked in front of the presenter as he held a shotgun in a firing position – allegedly in breach of the law and order standard FindingsStandard 2 (law and order) – programme did not encourage viewers to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An episode of Illegal New Zealand was broadcast on TV2 at 8pm on Thursday 9 July 2009....

CanWest TVWorks Ltd became TVWorks Ltd on 15 June 2007. Because the programme complained about was broadcast prior to this date, the broadcaster is still named as CanWest TVWorks Ltd. Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 The ComplaintA viewer described the programme Studentville, which showed footage of students drinking and at various stages of intoxication during the "Uni Games", as a 30-minute advertisement for binge drinking. He complained that the message of the programme was "have fun by binge drinking", and this breached standards for socially responsible liquor promotion, and law and order. The Broadcaster's ResponseCanWest said the Studentville series recorded the life of students from all university campuses throughout the year. Many of the events and parties shown during the series had featured students drinking to excess, and this was part of the New Zealand university culture....

ComplaintRadio Pacific talkback – host John Banks – dog control – host said he would shoot a dog ranger about to shoot his dog – offensive – irresponsibleFindings Principle 2 – comment advocated criminal violence – inconsistent with maintenance of law and order – upholdPrinciple 7 – not relevantNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. SummaryThe control of dogs was discussed on talkback on Radio Pacific at about 6. 45am on Thursday 7 December 2000. While expressing sympathy for the owners of cats killed by a dog, the host (John Banks) said he would shoot any dog ranger who came onto his property to shoot his dog. Mark Vincent, National President of the New Zealand Institute of Animal Control Officers Inc, complained to The RadioWorks New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that the comments were "disgusting, irresponsible, and distressing"....

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]The Rock Morning Rumble included a stunt featuring the Prime Minister, in which he was invited to enter a cage installed in the studio and ‘pick up the soap’. Upon the Prime Minister doing so, the host quoted a recognised rape scene from the film Deliverance, saying, ‘You’ve got a pretty little mouth Prime Minister’. The Authority upheld a complaint that the stunt amounted to a deliberate reference to prison rape that had the effect of trivialising sexual violence and specifically prison rape. While the segment was allegedly intended to be humorous, which is an important aspect of the exercise of free speech, the stunt overstepped the boundaries of legitimate humour and was offensive....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint regarding a comment made by radio panellist Catherine Robertson about ‘murderous fantasies’, concerning punishment of an individual who escaped COVID-19 managed isolation. It was a satirical comment intended to be humorous and in line with audience expectations for the programme. The Authority noted satire and humour are important aspects of freedom of expression. It found limiting the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression on this occasion was not justified. Not Upheld: Violence, Law and Order, Balance...

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 1989Close Up – item about a 10-year-old child who had taken his mother’s car for a joyride – child interviewed while sitting in the driver’s seat – showed child sitting in the driver’s seat of the car alone and rolling down the driveway at his house – allegedly in breach of law and order and children’s interests Findings Standards 2 (law and order) and 9 (children’s interests) – item did not encourage adult target audience to break the law or otherwise promote, condone or glamorise illegal behaviour – clearly illustrated the boy’s actions were dangerous and illegal – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....